House of Commons
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
This is the first time that I have spoken in the House since the death of Sir Jeremy Heywood. He was a dedicated public servant to whom I, among many, owe a great debt. I am very fortunate to have been able to call him a friend as well as a colleague. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would join in a tribute to Sir Jeremy.
The export strategy launched in the summer consists of the four ways in which Governments can make a difference: encourage, inform, connect and finance. It is only by making it easier for businesses that we will increase our exporting performance. Governments do not create wealth, businesses do.
James Morris
Last week, I visited Crosby Premier Stampings in Cradley Heath. The company has been forging for nearly 100 years in the Black country, and currently uses traditional and high-tech methods. It is increasing its global sales, including to China. Will the Secretary of State explain how the export strategy will help other such small and medium-sized enterprises to develop their export business worldwide?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend is a great champion of business in the Black country, but all businesses are different, and we want to help both new and seasoned exporters of all sizes with the sort of support that is appropriate to the barriers and opportunities that they will face. SMEs in particular will benefit from increased peer-to-peer learning, improved access to specialist advice, and the thousands of export opportunities on the great.gov.uk website.
Sir Edward Leigh
When I was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Trade Minister had no control over trade policy—they just went on jollies around the world promoting trade. As we will now be stuck in the EU customs union for years to come, with no ability to make our own trade deals, will the Secretary of State change the name of his Department to the “Department for International Trade Promotion and Engagement with the Customs Union”?
Dr Fox
The Government’s intention is that we will leave the European Union in March, we will exit the implementation period in December 2020, and we will have a fully independent trade policy. We have already begun—and finished—the first four consultations on independent trade agreements with other countries.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is welcome that, under the draft EU withdrawal agreement, businesses that export to the EU can continue to discount tariffs, volumes, customs, fees and so on, but the documentation —this relates directly to future export strategy—says:
“the development of the United Kingdom’s independent trade policy will be the subject of the future relationship negotiations.”
Given what we have seen so far, that effectively means that the UK will not be able to strike differentiated deals with third countries with which the EU currently has a deal. Given that that contradicts precisely everything that the Secretary of State has been saying, why has he not resigned?
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
One key part of the Government’s strategy is to build an extensive business-to-business network of exporters. What progress has been made on that? In particular, what role are business organisations playing so that we can foster such a network?
Dr Fox
One of the demands of the business community during the consultation was to give them better online communities so that they can speak to one another. We discovered that businesses did not necessarily want to talk to Government advisers, but wanted much more to speak to those who had faced similar business challenges and to ask how they had overcome them. That is under way, and we have recruited more staff to make that happen.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
The UK, I am pleased to say, remains the No. 1 destination in Europe for foreign direct investment. We have recently published analyses of the positive economic impact of FDI, which show the benefits of investment to the UK and how the Department is delivering national wealth by attracting investors to our key industries.
Alex Chalk
Foreign direct investment in the UK has been directly responsible for more than half a million jobs since 2010, including hundreds in my constituency. Whatever the shape of future trade policy, will the Minister assure me that, building on that figure, increasing our attractiveness to foreign direct investment remains a priority for this Government?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is a priority of this Government to create even more high-paying jobs by making the UK the most business-friendly market in the world. The Labour party’s promise to seize the assets of foreign pension funds invested in the UK threatens our prosperity and the retirement of those around the world who have put their confidence in Britain.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
In the past few years I have often thought that I live on a parallel planet to the Minister. That obviously is the case, because the senior people I meet from the United States, China and other major economies are not investing, or thinking of investing, in the United Kingdom, partly because of the uncertainty over Brexit and because, if we leave the European Union, they want a market of 650 million, not 65 million.
Graham Stuart
I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman does live in a parallel universe, but it is one that he shares with his Front Benchers. His parallel universe is entirely divorced from the reality that investors are coming to the UK. We are the No. 1 foreign direct investment destination in Europe. We have the largest stock, and that is why we have been able to support more than half a million new jobs since 2010. The biggest threat, investors tell me, is that of Labour coming to power.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
During the referendum, “Project Fear” told us that global business interest in the UK would collapse if people voted to leave. Can the Minister confirm whether foreign direct investment has gone up or down since the referendum in June 2016?
Graham Stuart
I am glad to confirm to my hon. Friend that our stock of foreign direct investment has gone up. We remain the No. 1 destination in Europe and are seeing companies in so many sectors coming here. Investors have some concerns about Brexit but, as I have said, what they are really alarmed about is the prospect of Labour seizing their assets and destroying the job creation that investment brings.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Sir Jeremy Heywood?
I was delighted, if somewhat surprised, to see the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box this morning. He and his Ministers have talked about a record number of FDI investments in the last full year, 2017, but he knows that, in value, it was actually the worst year for inward investment since 1994. Complacently, he celebrates the forecast by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for the first half of 2018, but he knows that the UNCTAD report states that this reflects
“a surge in intra-firm loans”.
These are loans that are often used to minimise tax by creating an artificial debt shield and they create no new jobs in the UK. How many such intra-firm loans are in the FDI statistics, and what assessment has the Minister made of the reduction in tax receipts to the Exchequer as a result?
Graham Stuart
The UNCTAD figures that measure foreign direct investment showed the UK moving above the United States into third in the first six months of this year, but the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that they include intra-company loans. Any figures around flow should be treated with caution; the most important thing is the stock of foreign direct investment in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, if we had listened to some, we would have expected divestment. There was no divestment; there were increases in investment. In the last year, if I may deal with what is most important to me and my constituents, there were 75,000 new jobs created by foreign direct investment.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
I have made five visits to China this year. The most recent was when I led the UK delegation to China’s International Import Expo in Shanghai this month, supporting British firms to sign deals worth over £2 billion.
Sir Desmond Swayne
How are we doing in terms of goods and services, and how does that compare internationally?
Dr Fox
Our ratio of goods and services exports to the world outside the European Union is roughly 50:50. Eighty per cent. of our exports to China are goods, which suggests that the Chinese service market is not as open as it should be. Therefore, much of our effort is based on trying to encourage the Government of China to open up its services, which of course would be of benefit to the United Kingdom, the world’s second biggest services exporter.
Jim Shannon
Let me put on record my thanks for the work that the Minister and others have done to secure the £250 million deal for Lakeland Dairies’ milk products over a five-year period, which secures jobs as well.
In the past 10 years alone, China’s GDP has tripled. What assessment has the Department made of the potential trade and investment opportunities for the UK, with special reference to the agri-food industry?
Dr Fox
We are conducting a joint trade and investment review with China as part of looking ahead to deepen that relationship. Under the UK-China Joint Economic and Trade Commission, we lobby for increased market access sector by sector. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments; it is not the highest publicity aspect of the Department for International Trade, but opening up a sector worth quarter of a billion pounds to Northern Ireland is a big achievement.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Last year, British exports to China grew by 28%. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of how that trajectory will rise over the next few years?
Dr Fox
We know from a number of consumer surveys that about 60% of Chinese consumers say that they would pay a higher price for produce just because it is made in the United Kingdom. We are associated with the quality end of the global market, which is the rising market in China, and I expect our exports there to continue to grow apace.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
The UK is home to a world-leading creative industries sector, which we will continue to support as part of our modern and ambitious trade policy. UK creative industries exported £40.2 billion of goods and services in 2016, and we recently completed a public consultation that will inform our future approach in trade agreements.
Bambos Charalambous
Can the Secretary of State reassure the creative industries that professional equipment such as musical instruments will not be subject to additional documentation requirements and tariffs at the border?
Dr Fox
That is exactly what we are seeking to achieve in the agreement the Prime Minister reaches—I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the European market. Not only do we want to secure continued tariff-free EU access, but we want further liberalisation so that we increase potential global trade, too.
Sandy Martin
Can the Secretary of State confirm that trade in the creative industries of the EU will benefit from reciprocity of regulation on licensing and collective rights management?
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
May I make a particular plea for the gaming sector so that BAFTA-winning companies such as Wales Interactive, which is in my constituency, can continue to thrive, whether we do or do not leave the European Union?
Dr Fox
We will be leaving the European Union. It is important to note that sometimes the creative industries sector is generally underappreciated for the contribution it makes to the earnings of this country, not only through exports—I mentioned the £40.2 billion of goods and services exports—but through the income it generates for the United Kingdom. It is an important sector, which is why we put it at the heart of not only our industrial policy, but our trade policy.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Society of Authors has called on the Government to ensure that copyright is not used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. Any future deals must ensure that international copyright treaties are applied by the book; anything else would risk damaging this important and iconic sector. Will the Secretary of State still be here to reassure British authors, the reading public and other creative industries that our gold standard copyright regime will be protected post Brexit?
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)
The Government have been clear that future imports to the UK must meet UK food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards. We will not compromise our standards in pursuit of a trade agreement.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister knows full well that UK consumers expect safe, high-quality food. The Secretary of State has assured us that he has 40 trade deals ready to go at the drop of a hat. Can the Minister tell us how many of those trade deals embed the exact same high food standards?
George Hollingbery
The 40 deals to which the hon. Gentleman refers are, of course, the deals that the EU currently has with partners. Our ambition is to transition those trade deals exactly as they are—or at least as closely as possible—and they contain the current measures.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
We not only have really high welfare and hygiene standards, but reduce much antibiotic use by producing good-quality food. Can we be assured that food that does not meet those standards will not come into the country and that those standards will not be frittered away in an agreement on service industries?
George Hollingbery
I can say to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that we absolutely have that intention. It is very straightforward. When I am abroad, I find on a regular basis, as the Secretary of State has said, that it is the commitment to high standards in the UK market that so motivates consumers to buy our products. Not only is having these high standards the right thing to do, but there is no rational commercial incentive to do otherwise.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
The so-called backstop would trap Northern Ireland in a common regulatory area under EU rules for our key export industries of manufacturing, agriculture and agri-food. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of that on Northern Ireland’s ability to participate in UK-wide trade deals in relation to those key exports?
George Hollingbery
The Government have only just published the withdrawal agreement, which will be before the House shortly, and the Department will assess all issues of that sort in the context of the proposed agreement.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State spoke earlier of how highly regarded UK goods are. That is true of successful exports such as dairy, smoked salmon and vegetables. I noticed that the Minister made a commitment in his initial answer to not dropping our food standards. Given that the United States has made it clear that that is exactly what has to happen to agree any future trade deals, will he now rule out any trade deals, including with the United States, that see any drop in our very high and successful food standards?
George Hollingbery
I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave moments ago. We are scoping potential trade deals with all the partners with whom we have announced that we are seeking to do free trade deals, and our position on these standards remains exactly the same: we will not be changing UK law in this regard.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
The UK’s automotive sector is one of our strongest industries and, for that reason, it has been at the heart of our negotiations with the EU. The agreement announced last night will protect integrated supply chains and allow the industry to continue to thrive.
Gerald Jones
I would like to press the Minister further. What will the Department do to protect this specific supply chain, which is made up of many hundreds of SMEs across the country?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right, which was why we put the interests of that industry at the heart of our negotiations. That is why the deal provides the supply chain with exactly the continuity needed to ensure its successful growth, and it is why I ask the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he supports it; otherwise, he will be putting all those automotive jobs at risk.
Jessica Morden
The UK’s steel sector currently provides around a third of our automotive sector’s steel requirements. What are Ministers doing to replicate the EU’s steel safeguards, which prevent sudden surges of imports, after Brexit?
Graham Stuart
We have set up the Trade Remedies Authority, which I note the Labour party voted against. We have put in place all the measures necessary to ensure that producers are protected from dumping. It was a shame that the Labour party voted against the very measures that sought to protect British jobs, and I do not know why the hon. Lady joined those on her Front Bench in doing so.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Minister says that he will support all measures to help the supply chain, including small businesses in my constituency, but can he guarantee that he and the Secretary of State will still be in post by lunchtime to defend those industries?
Graham Stuart
It is unfortunate, as was shown by the previous vote, that the Labour party always puts politics ahead of the interests of ordinary people working in the automotive industry across this country. We are seeing more and more investment in this country, with the announcement of a major investment by McLaren in Sheffield only yesterday. Let us not play politics. Let us get the deal over the line and protect our growing and strong automotive industry.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)
My ministerial colleagues and I regularly meet our counterparts from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a range of issues. When it comes to products imported to the UK, quality, safety and performance will continue to be paramount. Without exception, imports must meet all the relevant UK product rules and regulations.
Kerry McCarthy
We have heard quite a few times this morning that there will be no lowering of standards when it comes to imports under future trade deals, but the Government rejected an amendment to the Trade Bill to include a non-regression clause. Will they now support an amendment to the Agriculture Bill, which we will be discussing in Committee later today, that would allow for the same so that we can be sure that our food and our safety standards are protected?
George Hollingbery
I have noted some of the discussions on the Agriculture Bill, which I read earlier today, and I have noted the discussions on this. I have to say, and the hon. Lady should take some real encouragement from this fact, that the standards on these issues in the UK are already higher than they are in the EU. That, I think, should give the House confidence as to the UK’s intention on this. I will repeat one more time: there is absolutely no intention that the Government will reduce their standards in this area.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
I am committed to ensuring that UK trade policy supports gender equality. I will be publishing scoping assessments on each new free trade agreement and these will consider the effects of concluding trade deals on different groups, including gender groups.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but what policy measures will he put in place to ensure that the sustainable development goals are met, particularly goal 5 to ensure equality for women and girls?
Dr Fox
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. It was one of the points we considered at the World Trade Organisation meeting of Trade Ministers in Buenos Aires. We looked at a study showing that of companies that trade only offline, four out of five are owned or run by men. Of those that run only online, four out of five are run or owned by women. This indicates that e-commerce is one of the prime development tools that we can use. The liberalisation of e-commerce and creating a global network of regulation is therefore one of the best ways we can combine trade and development policy, specifically to help women experience the benefits of the global economy.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
My Department is responsible for foreign and outward direct investment, establishing an independent trade policy and export promotion. Later today, the Board of Trade will meet in Wales for the first time in history, jointly hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. As the President of the Board of Trade, I can today announce a £240 million investment drive in Wales, which will create thousands of jobs. The Board of Trade will also today announce the launch of the UK’s first energy investment portfolio, worth an estimated £5 billion.
Kerry McCarthy
Exporting companies in my constituency have told me that the Trade Secretary actually asked to meet them, but on condition that they did not discuss Brexit. Even more ludicrously, the Brexit Secretary—not the one who has just resigned, but the one who resigned before that—also said he wanted to meet them, but on the same condition. It is only £1 to go over Clifton suspension bridge from the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency into Bristol. If I offer to pay that quid for him, will he come to Bristol and tell our exporting companies what the hell is going on?
Dr Fox
The companies in Bristol seem to know already what is going on, without requiring any contribution from the hon. Lady—financial or otherwise. They are not only creating huge numbers of jobs, but are among the best export hubs in the whole of the United Kingdom, showing excellence in whole areas from the creative industries to aerospace. She need not worry too much.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Dr Fox
There are a number of events up and down the country. I will be hosting events in my own constituency, using the export hub. A number of Members will already have used the hub in their own constituencies. This is a great initiative, and it is a chance for MPs of all parties to show just how much support they give to small businesses. I know that a number of MPs hosted events up and down the country last year. I will be doing so, and I urge my hon. Friend to do so, although I am sure he requires no urging whatsoever. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will use this opportunity to celebrate the success of small business.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Dr Fox
We have set out our export and investment strategy, and we are one of the few countries in the world that are seeing a rise in investment at a time when foreign direct investment is dropping by 41%. We currently have one of the biggest increases in exports, and our trade policy and new system of trade commissioners will ensure increased levels of contact with Governments in all countries, including the one that the right hon. Gentleman failed to tell us the name of.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have outlined to the House the progress that new free trade deals will make, and consultations on four potential deals were in the public realm from July to October. Those potential deals include the US, Australia, New Zealand and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and we are currently in the process of analysing the extensive responses that we received.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Dr Fox
The United Kingdom is committed to the joint comprehensive plan of action, and we want Iran to derive the economic benefits of that agreement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are two particular difficulties for British companies. One is access to finance for doing business in Iran, and the second is that it is often difficult for companies to know who the end point they are dealing with is, and whether they may in fact be part of the regime that would require sanctions to be applied. We work with British businesses to try to help them, but we understand that it is a real minefield.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend makes a useful point, and we have identified 400,000 businesses that could be exporting but do not because of their fear, or lack of understanding, of the markets to which they would export, and their cultural and regulatory frameworks. That is why we have established the framework of our trade commissioners around the world, and why we have put members of UK Export Finance in those markets, so that they can gain expertise in the financial areas that companies will enter, and will be there to advise companies in those markets.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The north-east is the only region in the country that still exports more than it imports. That involves large companies such as Nissan, as well as many great small start-ups and businesses that cannot afford expensive lawyers or management consultants. What specific guidance is available to those companies on how to continue and increase trading post-Brexit?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
That is why we have the export strategy and we have worked with industry, which has been welcomed by small business groups and others. With staff in 108 countries around the world, and our regional and sector teams, we are working harder than ever before to ensure that the information flow, and the advice and opportunities for small businesses, is advertised in a better and more effective way than ever before. [Interruption.] Despite the hon. Lady’s laughter, that is why last year our exports grew by more than 10% to £617 billion, and they are now more than £630 billion and counting.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
We are committed to tackling misogyny and gender inequality, and have pledged £100 million over four years to support our strategy to combat violence against women and girls. We will soon publish our plans to tackle sexual harassment, and we have asked the Law Commission to consider whether sex and gender should be included under current hate crime legislation.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Actions may be criminal, but will the Minister ensure that we do not stray any further into the realms of thought crime?
Victoria Atkins
Of course not: hate crimes are crimes that already exist as crimes in themselves, such as assault and criminal damage, but for which the hatred of a protected characteristic is the aggravating feature that enables judges to reflect that in their sentencing, and we have asked the Law Commission to consider whether sex and gender should be added to those protected characteristics. There will be no legislation for thought crime from this Government.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Recent work done in women’s prisons shows that 48% of women prisoners have had a major brain injury before going to prison, the vast majority due to domestic violence. Could we not solve some of the problems of crime if we dealt more robustly with domestic violence?
Victoria Atkins
I am so pleased the hon. Gentleman raises this point. As he knows, the Government are committed to a domestic abuse Bill. The draft Bill will be published by the end of this Session and there will be a whole range of non-legislative measures with that proposed legislation as well. I hope the whole House will join me in fighting this terrible crime, because it has such enormous impacts not just on the immediate victims themselves but on wider society.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I hope the Minister will agree with me when I say that language is extremely important in terms of misogyny and the way that men, in particular, behave in politics at all levels across the United Kingdom. Will she consider formal training not just for MPs but those in devolved institutions and councils across the country, because misogyny is never acceptable?
Victoria Atkins
I think that this is where we, as a society, need to make it very clear that we do not expect women to be shouted at in the street or have very unpleasant things said to them. I know there are Members of this House who suffer such abuse on a daily basis on social media. That is simply unacceptable, so I join the hon. Gentleman in saying to everyone in this House that how we use our language really matters and that we must ensure our young people grow up with that clear message, too.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
Universal credit treats all individuals equally, irrespective of gender. It provides one-to-one support and incentives to help claimants progress in work. The latest Office for National Statistics labour market statistics show a near record high rate for women in employment.
Tommy Sheppard
The Minister will know that universal credit pays less to lone parents under 25 than the current legacy benefits. Given that 90% of young lone parents are women, surely that is a clear and blatant case of discrimination against them. Will the Minister speak to the new Work and Pensions Secretary to ask for a review of this policy?
Alok Sharma
We support everyone on the universal credit system, including lone parents. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the Budget we announced an extra £4.5 billion of support which included increasing work allowances, and childcare support is available for parents of young children.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £1.7 billion announced in the Budget to increase work allowances for families with children, which will mean that 2.4 million families will be better off?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I always find it interesting when Opposition Members talk about helping their constituents. Sadly, what they do not then do is vote in the Lobby to support the policies designed to help those very people.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, we listened to organisations that work in the area of domestic abuse and introduced split payments. Will the Minister consider what has happened in Northern Ireland? It is a low-cost, no-cost option. Will he consider introducing it to ensure a safety net for those people who are in abusive and controlling relationships?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady knows, split payments are available under universal credit. It is very important that if any individuals are facing the sort of abuse she talks about, we need to be able to signpost them to additional support. We give training to our work coaches to allow them to do that.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Universal credit comes to Castlemilk in my constituency next month, where there is a women’s group supporting women who have fled or who are living with domestic violence. They are deeply, deeply concerned about universal credit coming. Will a Minister please come to Castlemilk to meet these groups of women?
Alok Sharma
I go up and down the country to jobcentres, and I will, of course, go to Scotland in due course, but what I hope the hon. Gentleman will do in turn is talk to local jobcentres in his area and seek that assurance as well for his constituents.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The reality is this: women who work, women without children, women with children, disabled women, black, Asian and minority ethnic women and women fleeing domestic violence have all been punished by universal credit. Report after report has issued stark warnings about the design of universal credit and its impact on survivors, but the Government refuse to listen. Instead, they make claims about a landmark domestic abuse Bill, while their policies, staff and systems are failing to protect survivors. It makes no sense. Will the Minister show some compassion when he gets to his feet and halt the roll-out of universal credit until it is fixed?
Alok Sharma
We are keen to support everyone who is coming on to universal credit. That is why earlier this year we introduced £1.5 billion of support. In the Budget, we had another net £4.5 billion of support produced. With respect, I say to the hon. Lady that if she wants to help her constituents, she should vote for the measures whereby we put more money into the system.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
We keep any uncommenced provisions from the Equality Act under review. Equality is never a one-time fix and it is right that we keep re-examining these issues. However, political parties are responsible for their candidate selection and should lead the way in improving diverse representation.
Bambos Charalambous
Gender pay gap reporting has ensured transparency across the board and resulted in companies taking action. Section 106 could have the same effect, so will the Minister consult those parties on its introduction?
Victoria Atkins
I hope that every party is looking at this legislation. Certainly, the Conservative party is looking at how we can gather this information, not just for the national Parliament but for local government, because we believe it is absolutely essential that local government reflects the society it serves as much as this House does.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I know that the Minister has committed to increasing the number of women in Parliament. Does she agree that we have a woman Prime Minister and strong women Secretaries of State, such as the woman beside her at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State for International Development, who should be congratulated on the support and the leadership they show to women across the country?
Victoria Atkins
I think it is 2-0 to us. This is a serious point. In the Labour party, there are many, many strong, capable women I have very good working relationships with. It is a great shame that the Labour party has never managed yet to entrust the leadership of its party to a woman—[Interruption.] I see somebody volunteering on the Opposition Front Bench. We have the opportunity to bring more women into this Parliament through an event next week, on 21 November, when every Member of Parliament can bring a woman into the House of Commons and invite them to stand in this House.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
A number of single parents have accessed the advance payment service under universal credit. However, as a result, they have found that the payments are required to be repaid in 15 months, or with 40% of their entitlement reclaimed. What will the Government do to ensure that many are not falling further into financial hardship as a result of advance payments under universal credit?
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. The only difficulty with her question is that it does not seem altogether aligned with, or even adjacent to, the subject matter on the Order Paper. Her supplementary question would have been entirely pertinent to Question 2, but I am going to imagine that she has a great interest in section 106 of the Equality Act and that there is some sort of link, unknown to me but known to clever people like Ministers.
Victoria Atkins
I am very interested by the hon. Lady’s question—I am so interested that I am going to ask the responsible Minister to write to her in due course. But I make the point that the more female Members of Parliament we have in the House, the more they can scrutinise this legislation.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What justification is there for an eight-year delay in the implementation of section 106?
Victoria Atkins
The Government have kept that under review, but, as I said earlier, it is also for political parties themselves to act on it, so I am pleased that the Conservative party is looking into how we can gather the evidence in order to improve diversity in our candidates list.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a certain amount of gesticulation from a sedentary position. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) is signalling that the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) wanted to come in on Question 2. I am sorry if she has been inconvenienced, but she needed to bob on Question 2, not Question 3. But never mind; she has made her point with considerable force and alacrity, and it is on the record. I would call her again, but she is entitled to only one. However, she has made her point very clearly, and we are extremely grateful.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
The Government are committed to transforming their approach to domestic abuse, and that includes improving the response of employers to this devastating crime. We have therefore awarded £1 million to the charity Hestia for its “Tools for the Job” pilot project, which will help employers to improve their HR policies on domestic abuse and will fund specialist employment domestic violence advocates. We are also working closely with the employers initiative, which does similar work.
Christian Matheson
Victims of domestic abuse and violence tell us that a short period of leave from work while they manage to sort out the difficulties in their lives would be helpful. Will the Minister agree to meet employers and trade unions to discuss the possibility of introducing paid leave for victims of domestic violence?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. I keep pointing out to employers that having policies that can help to identify and support victims of domestic abuse in their workforces makes not only good moral sense but good business sense. I should be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, and employers and trade unions, to discuss what more we can do to help.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Of course, domestic violence affects not just women but men, too; but what contact has my hon. Friend had with companies such as the John Lewis Partnership, whose chief executive takes a particularly proactive approach to care in her company?
Victoria Atkins
We tend to focus on women as being the victims of domestic abuse because the statistics show us that it is a gendered crime, but I never forget the fact that, of course, men can be the victims of domestic abuse. That is why we are doing a great deal of work, both through the domestic violence and abuse Bill and through non-legislative measures, to support them and ensure that services are there for them.
I am sure that the John Lewis Partnership is part of the employers initiative, a piece of work in which I am very involved and about which I am very enthusiastic. I should be delighted to support John Lewis not just in a spending capacity, but in a legislative capacity as well.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
When I recently visited a Leeds Women’s Aid hostel, which does fantastic work throughout my city, it raised the problems experienced by women in low-paid work in accessing emergency accommodation. What support can the Government give to ensure that women feel confident enough to leave violent relationships and seek support?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady has raised an extremely important point. There have been more refuge places since 2010 under this Government, and in the summer we reconfirmed the funding arrangements for refuges. When I visit refuges, which are incredibly important places for women who need to flee very dangerous situations, what I hear from those women is that they would like to have that support at an earlier stage so that they do not have to be the ones who leave—so that he leaves, rather than her—and we are working on that as well.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
It’s me again!
It is encouraging that the national gender pay gap is at its narrowest ever, but it will take time and action by employers if we are to close it entirely. I am thrilled that more than 10,000 employers reported their gender pay gaps this year, but that is just the first step. We are now working with employers to help them to understand their gender pay gaps and what plans they could make to close them.
Alex Chalk
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Does my hon. Friend agree that not just 10,000 employers but 100% of all eligible employers have reported their data and that that provides a baseline on which future progress can be measured and recorded?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a committed feminist on this subject. Interestingly, not only have more than 10,000 businesses had to have this conversation about how they treat women in their workplace, but we know it is having a trickle-down effect on employers who do not necessarily meet the threshold. I know from the conversations that I have had with business leaders that they understand: the will is there for them to change. They want to do so, and they want to do so in partnership with us in government.
Christine Jardine
Given the early signs of the success of mandatory gender pay reporting for large businesses, has the Minister considered extending pay transparency to tackle wider inequalities, as recommended by the Institute for Public Policy Research, such as requiring companies with 50 or more employees to report not just on gender pay, but ethnicity and disability gaps?
Victoria Atkins
A huge amount of work is going on, and as the hon. Lady rightly says, the focus this year has been on gender inequality, but we are extending it to ethnic diversity and so on. Interestingly, we have just announced that we are consulting on whether businesses should publicise their parental leave policies to help women and carers.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Victoria Atkins
Forgive me if I have had not heard the hon. Gentleman correctly because of the hubbub in the Chamber; it is wonderful that everybody is so excited about women and equalities today.
The gender pay gap for women between the ages of 40 and 49 has fallen since 2010, but we published the “Fuller Working Lives” strategy last year and continue to work with businesses to ensure that everyone can adapt to the changing face of the workplace.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is disappointing that the Government rejected the Women and Equalities Committee recommendation of a cross-departmental race equality strategy. Can the Minister at least commit to making the reporting of a race pay gap compulsory, in line with the gender pay gap?
Victoria Atkins
As I have said, a great deal of work is going on, and I had a meeting earlier this year on exactly this point and look forward in due course to working with my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on how we can close these gaps as well.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
The Government-owned British Business Bank provides start-up loans for new entrepreneurs, and women account for 39% of recipients. The bank is also conducting a review into specific barriers female-led businesses face in accessing venture capital. All entrepreneurs in England can access advice and support from growth hubs and business support helplines, and 45% of the helpline users were women in 2017-18.
Theresa Villiers
Will my hon. Friend welcome the work of the entrepreneur Alison Cork in setting up the Make It Your Business network to support women who want to start their own businesses, including a branch in my constituency, Chipping Barnet?
Kelly Tolhurst
I welcome such initiatives that encourage and support women to start their own businesses, and I also appreciate the work of my right hon. Friend’s constituent Alison Cork. Connecting people and building networks is an important part of supporting entrepreneurs. That is why the Chancellor announced in the autumn Budget another £20 million to strengthen local networks.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Many women experience debilitating symptoms during the menopause, with 72% saying they feel completely unsupported at work during this time. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make the necessary legislative changes so that these women feel supported?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady is a champion for all things around women, and I would be happy to meet her at some stage to talk about her particular concerns.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
I know my duty, and at 10 am this morning, it was to be in this House answering questions. [Interruption.]
Penny Mordaunt
The Government Equalities Office will be holding a conference to celebrate the centenary of the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 on 21 November 2018. The GEO is also providing financial assistance to ensure that every MP in this House can invite a woman constituent into Parliament for the day, and I hope that all MPs will be doing that.
Chris Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. It was great to see female MPs from around the globe pledge to support one another’s fight for gender equality recently. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on that first ever meeting of women MPs from every Parliament around the world?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. One of the outcomes of that day, alongside the issues that the women discussed, was the desire expressed by me and the other host of the event that those women should form a lasting network to support one another in fighting for gender equality around the world.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Penny Mordaunt)
As a result of meeting the commitments to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 one year early, 13.6 million women will see their income tax bill reduced in 2019-20 and 1 million women will be taken out of income tax altogether.
Sandy Martin
Thank you very much for allowing me a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. What steps are the Government taking to address the pensions inequality faced by older women affected by the rise in the state pension age?
Penny Mordaunt
I will be making an announcement on this in my topical questions statement. It is important that the Government Equalities Office, which has rightly concentrated on executive women and women in the workplace, should broaden the scope of its work to look at wider issues, including the financial fragility of some women.
Mr Speaker
My apologies to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin). I was trying to do three things at once, unsuccessfully.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Penny Mordaunt)
To ensure that the Government Equalities Office is at the heart of this Government’s work, the Prime Minister has agreed that it will join the Cabinet Office from 1 April next year. This machinery of government change will provide a permanent home for the Government Equalities Office in line with the key recommendations of the Women and Equalities Committee earlier this year. It will enable the GEO to have even more influence and leverage within the Government, working with the Race Disparity Unit, the Office for Disability Issues and others to drive meaningful progress on equalities. This will be a step up in the work that the GEO can do to reduce inequality in the UK.
Penny Mordaunt
The women’s centenary suffrage fund supports initiatives across England to engage women in local democracy. We will also be funding an Ask Her to Stand event. We funded one in July that was attended by more than 300 women, many of whom were interested in becoming councillors. I congratulate my hon. Friend’s borough on the progress that it has made.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Minister for Women’s duty was to be here at 10 o’clock. I wonder whether that will still be the case at 11 o’clock. A shocking new report on maternity support for female offenders by Dr Laura Abbott, a specialist midwife and academic, has highlighted a real gap between what is recognised as being needed and what is actually provided for pregnant women in prison. Can the House be assured that specific mandatory provision for pregnant women and new mothers in prison will be included in any future framework?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We know that quite often the care given to female offenders in prison does fall short, and I will look at the specific issue that she raises. Clearly, we need to ensure that the best maternity support is given to them.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for highlighting her constituent Erin Rodgers. The Government support offer is available to all those wishing to grow a business, regardless of their age, gender or ethnicity. We back the Start Up Loans Company, which has been providing funding and incentives to support new entrepreneurs since 2012. It has delivered loans totalling £446 million, 39% of which went to women. I wish Our Little Globe every success for the future.
Petition
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition reads as follows:
The petition of residents of South Walsall,
Declare that the “Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002289]
EU Exit Negotiations
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, I would like to update the House on our negotiations to leave the European Union. First, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) and for Tatton (Ms McVey). Delivering Brexit involves difficult choices for all of us. We do not agree on all of those choices, but I respect their views, and I would like to thank them sincerely for all that they have done.
Yesterday we agreed the provisional terms of our exit from the European Union, set out in the draft withdrawal agreement. We also agreed the broad terms of our future relationship, in an outline political declaration. President Juncker has now written to the President of the European Council to recommend that
“decisive progress has been made in the negotiations.”
A special European Council will be called for Sunday 25 November. This puts us close to a Brexit deal.
What we agreed yesterday was not the final deal. It is a draft treaty that means that we will leave the EU in a smooth and orderly way on 29 March 2019 and sets the framework for a future relationship that delivers in our national interest. It takes back control of our borders, laws and money, it protects jobs, security and the integrity of the United Kingdom, and it delivers in ways that many said could simply not be done.
We were told that we had a binary choice between the model of Norway or the model of Canada—that we could not have a bespoke deal. But the outline political declaration sets out an arrangement that is better for our country than both of these—a more ambitious free trade agreement than the EU has with any other country. We were told we would be treated like any other third country on security co-operation, but the outline political declaration sets out a breadth and depth of co-operation beyond anything the EU has agreed with any other country.
Let me take the House through the details. First, on the withdrawal agreement, the full legal text has now been agreed in principle. It sets out the terms on which the UK will leave the EU in 134 days’ time, on 29 March 2019. We have secured the rights of the more than 3 million EU citizens living in the UK and around 1 million UK nationals living in the EU. We have agreed a time-limited implementation period that ensures businesses only have to plan for one set of changes. We have agreed protocols to ensure Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas are covered by the withdrawal agreement, and we have agreed a fair financial settlement—far lower than the figures many mentioned at the start of this process.
Since the start of this process, I have been committed to ensuring that our exit from the EU deals with the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I believe this issue can best be solved through our future relationship with the European Union, but the withdrawal agreement sets out an insurance policy should that new relationship not be ready in time for the end of the implementation period. I do not pretend that this has been a comfortable process or that either we or the EU are entirely happy with all of the arrangements that have been included, but of course that is the case—this is an arrangement that we have both said we never want to have to use. But while some people might pretend otherwise, there is no deal that delivers the Brexit the British people voted for that does not involve this insurance policy—not Canada plus plus plus, not “Norway for now,” not our own White Paper. The EU will not negotiate any future partnership without it.
As the House knows, the original proposal from the EU was not acceptable as it would have meant creating a customs border down the Irish sea and breaking up the integrity of our United Kingdom, so last month I set out for the House the four steps we needed to take. This is what we have now done, and it has seen the EU make a number of concessions towards our position.
First, the EU proposal for a Northern Ireland-only customs solution has been dropped and replaced with a new UK-wide temporary customs arrangement that protects the integrity of our precious Union.
Secondly, we have created an option for a single time-limited extension of the implementation period as an alternative to bringing in the backstop. As I have said many times, I do not want to extend the implementation period and I do not believe we will need to do so. This is about an insurance policy, but if it happens that at the end of 2020 our future relationship is not quite ready, the UK will be able to make a choice between the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement or a short extension of the implementation period.
Thirdly, the withdrawal agreement commits both parties to use best endeavours to ensure that this insurance policy is never used, and in the unlikely event that it is needed, if we choose the backstop, the withdrawal agreement is explicit that the backstop is temporary and that the article 50 legal base cannot provide for a permanent relationship. There is also a mechanism by which the backstop can be terminated.
Finally, we have ensured full continued access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market.
The Brexit talks are about acting in the national interest, and that means making what I believe to be the right choices, not the easy ones. I know there are some who have said I should simply rip up the UK’s commitment to a backstop, but this would have been an entirely irresponsible course of action. It would have meant reneging on a promise made to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign and afterwards—that under no circumstances would Brexit lead to a return to the borders of the past—and it would have made it impossible to deliver a withdrawal agreement. As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I have a responsibility to people in every part of our country, and I intend to honour that promise.
By resolving this issue, we are now able to move on to finalising the details of an ambitious future partnership. The outline political declaration we have agreed sets out the basis for these negotiations, and we will negotiate intensively ahead of the European Council to turn this into a full future framework.
The declaration will end free movement once and for all. Instead we will have our own new skills-based immigration system, based not on the country people come from but on what they can contribute to the UK. The declaration agrees the creation of a free trade area for goods, with zero tariffs and no fees, charges or quantitative restrictions, across all goods sectors. No other major advanced economy has such an arrangement with the EU and, at the same time, we will also be free to strike new trade deals with other partners around the world.
We have also reached common ground on a close relationship on services and investment, including financial services, which goes well beyond World Trade Organisation commitments. The declaration ensures that we will be leaving the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, so we will decide how best to sustain and support our farms and our environment, and the UK will become an independent coastal state once again.
We have also reached agreement on key elements of our future security partnership to keep our people safe. This includes swift and effective extradition arrangements, as well as arrangements for effective data exchange on passenger name records, DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data. We have also have agreed a close and flexible partnership on foreign, security and defence policy.
When I first became Prime Minister in 2016 there was no ready-made blueprint for Brexit. Many people said it could simply not be done. I have never accepted that. I have been committed day and night to delivering on the result of the referendum and ensuring the UK leaves the EU absolutely and on time. But I also said at the very start that withdrawing from EU membership after 40 years, and establishing a wholly new relationship that will endure for decades to come, would be complex and require hard work. I know that it has been a frustrating process—it has forced us to confront some very difficult issues—but a good Brexit, a Brexit which is in the national interest, is possible.
We have persevered and have made a decisive breakthrough. Once a final deal is agreed, I will bring it to Parliament, and I will ask MPs to consider the national interest and give it their backing. Voting against a deal would take us all back to square one. It would mean more uncertainty, more division and a failure to deliver on the decision of the British people that we should leave the EU. If we get behind a deal, we can bring our country back together and seize the opportunities that lie ahead. The British people want us to get this done and to get on with addressing the other issues they care about: creating more good jobs in every part of the UK; doing more to help families with the cost of living; helping our NHS to provide first-class care and our schools to give every child a great start in life; and focusing every ounce of our energy on building a brighter future for our country.
So the choice is clear: we can choose to leave with no deal; we can risk no Brexit at all; or we can choose to unite and support the best deal that can be negotiated—this deal. It is a deal that ends free movement; takes back control of our borders, laws and money; delivers a free trade area for goods with zero tariffs; leaves the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy; delivers an independent foreign and defence policy, while retaining the continued security co-operation to keep our people safe; maintains shared commitments to high standards; protects jobs; honours the integrity of our United Kingdom; and delivers the Brexit the British people voted for. I choose to deliver for the British people. I choose to do what is in our national interest. And I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I want to thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement.
The withdrawal agreement and the outline political declaration represent a huge and damaging failure. After two years of bungled negotiations, the Government have produced a botched deal that breaches the Prime Minister’s own red lines and does not meet our six tests. The Government are in chaos. Their deal risks leaving the country in an indefinite halfway house, without a real say. When even the last Brexit Secretary, who, theoretically at least, negotiated the deal, says that
“I cannot support the proposed deal”,
what faith does that give anyone else in this place or in this country? The Government simply cannot put to Parliament this half-baked deal that both the Brexit Secretary and his predecessor have rejected. No deal is not a real option, and the Government have not seriously prepared for it. The Government must publish their full legal advice, the Treasury a full economic impact assessment of the deal and the Office for Budget Responsibility an updated economic forecast.
The withdrawal agreement is a leap in the dark—an ill-defined deal by a never defined date. There is no mention of the Prime Minister’s favoured term “implementation period” anywhere in the 585 pages of this document. And no wonder, as there is precious little new to implement spelled out in either the agreement or the political declaration. Article 3 of the agreement states that transition can be extended to end by “31 December 20XX”. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this permits an extension to be rolled on until 2099?
Can the Prime Minister confirm that if the UK Government cannot agree a comprehensive future relationship by January 2021, which few believe will be possible and which the last two years give us no confidence the Government can do, those negotiations would have to be put on hold, because the focus would then inevitably shift from negotiations on the future relationship to those on an extension of the transition period, including further payments to the EU? Article 132 sets out that process fairly clearly.
How confident is the Prime Minister that a deal can be done by the end of 2020, and can she confirm that if a new trade agreement is not agreed by 31 December 2020, article 132 will apply—meaning our paying a huge financial contribution to extend the transition period—if we are to avoid triggering the backstop, as the Prime Minister insists is her position? Should the backstop come into force, there would be no time limit or end point, and if either party requested a review and there was no agreement, it would go to independent arbitration. The backstop locks Britain into a deal it cannot leave without the agreement of the EU. Restrictions on state aid are hardwired into the backstop, with an arbitration mechanism, but no such guarantee exists for workers’ rights.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the backstop applies separate regulatory rules to Northern Ireland, creating a de facto border down the Irish sea, as Northern Ireland would be subject to the customs union but the rest of the UK would not? That is despite the fact that the Prime Minister said this was something
“no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to”—[Official Report, 28 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 823.]
It is another of her red lines breached. In fact, the list of EU measures that continue to apply to the UK in respect of Northern Ireland runs to 68 pages of the agreement. This affects VAT declarations and rules of origin checks.
Moreover, it is clear that the Prime Minister’s red line regarding the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice has also been torn up. By 2021, under the Prime Minister’s plan, we will either be in a backstop or still be in transition, continuing to contribute to the EU budget and to follow the rules overseen by the ECJ. It is utterly far-fetched for the Prime Minister to say this plan means we take control over our laws, money and borders.
After two years of negotiation, all the Government have really agreed is a vague seven-page outline of political declarations, which looks like a substantial dilution of the Prime Minister’s previously declared negotiating priorities. There is only the scantiest mention of workers’ rights, consumers’ rights and environmental protection; there is no determination to achieve frictionless trade, or even trade as frictionless as possible; and no ambition to negotiate a new comprehensive customs union that would protect trade, jobs and industry, so uncertainty continues for businesses and all those who work in them. That risks investment decisions being deferred even further, costing jobs and living standards. Many companies might decide that the lack of certainty simply means they themselves will Brexit. There is no clear plan to get a strong deal with the single market to ensure continued access to European markets and services, merely a vague commitment to go beyond the baseline of the World Trade Organisation. The First Ministers of Wales and Scotland made it clear to the Prime Minister that participation in a customs union to protect the economy and jobs was essential.
Likewise, there is no ambition to achieve continuation of the European arrest warrant or an equivalent, and no clarity on our status with Europol, Eurojust or even the Galileo project. There is no clarity either on a future immigration system between the UK and the EU. Following the Windrush scandal, many EU nationals here will have no confidence—no confidence at all—in the Government’s ability to deliver a fair and efficient system.
The Brexit Secretary promised a “substantive” document; he is obviously no longer here, so can the Prime Minister inform the House of when that detailed framework agreement will be with us?
This is not the deal that the country was promised, and Parliament cannot, and I believe will not, accept a false choice between this bad deal and no deal. People around the country will be feeling anxious this morning—about the industries they work in, the jobs they hold and the stability of their communities and their country. The Government must now withdraw this half-baked deal, which it is clear does not have the backing of the Cabinet, this Parliament or the country as a whole.
The Prime Minister
Let me pick up some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. First, he said that no deal was not an option, but then complained that we were not preparing for no deal. Actually, we have been preparing for no deal, and we continue to prepare for no deal, because I recognise that we obviously have a further stage of negotiation with the European Council and then, when that deal is finalised with the European Council, it has to come back to this House. So we will continue those preparations.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the withdrawal agreement is ill defined. Five hundred pages of detailed legal text on the withdrawal agreement is not an ill-defined withdrawal agreement. He complained that the withdrawal agreement does not refer to the implementation period. Of course, it does refer to the transition period, which is exactly the same period of time.
The right hon. Gentleman then talked about the whole question of the decision on the backstop and the implementation period as coming at the end of 2020. Well, if he looks again at the documents that have been produced, he will see that actually the decision will be taken in June 2020 as to whether it is likely that the future relationship will not be in place on 1 January 2021. At that point, it will be for the UK to decide whether it wishes to extend the implementation period for a limited period, or whether it wishes to go into the backstop.
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we have not dealt with the issue of the border down the Irish sea. We have dealt with that, as I was clear in this House that we would. It took some considerable time to persuade the European Union to move from its proposal for a Northern Ireland-only customs territory to a UK-wide customs territory, but we have achieved that.
In relation to the question of workers’ rights, there is reference to non-regression.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the outline political declaration does not refer to what we are proposing in terms of a free trade area for the future; in fact, the protocol explicitly does reference that. It sets out very clearly that we will be creating a free trade area between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
I am really not sure what document the right hon. Gentleman has read, because he said that there were no references to extradition, but there are indeed references to extradition. He also said that there was nothing about Europol, whereas there is an express reference that we will be including in the future document:
“Terms for the United Kingdom’s cooperation via Europol and Eurojust.”
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is indeed a choice before Members of this House: it is a choice of whether or not we go ahead with a deal that does deliver on the vote while protecting jobs, our security and our Union. Of course, what he wants is for us to stay in the single market and the customs union. That would not deliver on the vote of the referendum. We are delivering an end to free movement, coming out of the common agricultural policy and out of the common fisheries policy, and we are taking back control of our money, borders and laws. That is the right deal for Britain, and it is the deal that we will be putting forward before this House.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
It has always been a Brexiteer illusion that the country can leave the European Union treaties while selecting to retain all the benefits that we enjoy under the treaties and repudiating most, if not all, of the obligations. We have to face up to the fact that that is an illusion. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the biggest single economic benefit—in fact most of the main economic benefits—that we have enjoyed from our membership over the last decades flow from the completely open border between the whole of the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union and that upon that have been based huge flows of inward investment, the creation of just-in-time lines of supply and very many thousands of jobs in this country? So will she undertake not to change the present basis of that, which is the single market and the customs union, until we know what we are changing to and until we are satisfied that any change will retain those benefits and keep us completely open from any delays and costs caused by regulatory differences or anything else that would be created by moving away from where we are now? The economic future of this country will be threatened very considerably if we just decide, unilaterally, to walk out, as some of my colleagues seem prepared to recommend.
The Prime Minister
We have indeed heard from business a very clear message about the importance of frictionless borders, which is precisely why the proposal that the United Kingdom has put forward to the European Union is based on that concept of frictionless borders. The free trade area that we have put forward is precisely in that frame. My right hon. and learned Friend talks about remaining in the single market and the customs union. I do not believe that that is right for the future of the United Kingdom, because I do not believe that doing those things would deliver on the vote of the British people. There are various things that underpinned the vote. An end to free movement was crucial among those, and remaining in the customs union does not enable us to have an independent trade policy. I believe it is important that we do have an independent trade policy once we have left the European Union. We are negotiating the basis of our future trading relationship, but it is based on the concept of a free trade area and precisely the point that he makes about being able to move goods seamlessly across the border.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement.
The Prime Minister comes before us today trying to sell us a deal that is already dead in the water. Not even her own Brexit Secretary could stand over it. Now, to lose one Brexit Secretary is one thing, but to lose two in a matter of months illuminates the chaotic nature of this Tory Government. The No. 10 front door has become a revolving one. The Prime Minister talks about taking back control. She cannot even control her own Cabinet. As I said yesterday, she is desperate and is increasingly looking defeated. What is absolutely shocking is that Scotland is not once mentioned in the document. Not once, Prime Minister, have the unique characteristics of Scotland’s devolved settlement been worthy of mention—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Leader of the Scottish National party must be heard and heard with courtesy. [Interruption.] We are very grateful for your sedentary observations, Mr Graham, but I do not think that they greatly add to the quality of our deliberations. Everybody will be heard.
Ian Blackford
Not once have Scotland’s unique characteristics in the devolved settlement been worthy of mention. There are 100 mentions of Northern Ireland, mentions of Gibraltar, of Cyprus and of the Isle of Man, but no reference to Scotland. Utter contempt has again been shown to the Scottish Government, their Parliament and its people.
Differentiated deals for Northern Ireland means that Scotland can have its own differentiated deal. If Northern Ireland can stay in the single market, why not Scotland, Prime Minister? The Scottish Government have published compromise documents calling for just this and the Scottish Parliament has affirmed that position. Why does the Prime Minister ignore the democratically expressed position of the Scottish Government? What has happened to the claim of a partnership of equals? Why are the desires of Scotland being ignored, when we know that a differentiated settlement can be delivered? Why does the Prime Minister stand in the face of the legitimate demands of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister can shake her head, but it is a matter of fact and a matter of reality. Show some respect to the devolved institutions. The price—[Interruption.] You can bay, you can shout and you can talk about it being dreadful, but why were the Scottish Government not consulted, as Gibraltar was, before the Prime Minister went to Cabinet yesterday?
The price that Scotland would be forced to pay is far too high, with lost jobs, household incomes slashed and our NHS under threat. Now is the time to get realistic and put sensible options back on the table, such as remaining in the single market—the only credible compromise, for which the SNP has consistently made the case. This deal is dead in the water. It is now clear that there is not a majority for this deal or a no deal. The Prime Minister must go back to Brussels, extend article 50 and tell Brussels that we must remain in the single market and the customs union. Anything else will lead to economic chaos and crisis. Prime Minister, do the right thing and we will work with you. Stop the clock and go back to Brussels.
The Prime Minister
May I pick up two key points that the right hon. Gentleman made? First, he made a reference to Scotland’s NHS being under threat. In fact, Scotland’s NHS depends on the Scottish Government, the SNP Government—determining the money—[Interruption.] It is no good him pointing his finger at me. We ensure that in the NHS settlement, the Barnettised settlement means that more money comes to Scotland, and Scotland has chosen not to spend it all on its NHS. That is an SNP decision. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. A moment ago I protected the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), quite properly, when he was being brayed at in an unseemly manner. Let me say to Scottish National party Members that, having asked the question, they must hear the Prime Minister’s reply with courtesy. Don’t worry, everybody will get a chance, but the Prime Minister’s responses must be heard with a basic courtesy and respect.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was then going to pick up the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is not staying in the single market. What is within the documents is that, in order to ensure frictionless trade across the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, Northern Ireland will be meeting those regulations specifically in the goods part of the acquis, but it is not remaining a member of the single market. He talks about Scotland being given the same treatment as Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a very particular set of circumstances. It is the only part of the United Kingdom that will have a land border with a country that is continuing as a member of the European Union. That is why, together with our commitments in the Belfast agreement, Northern Ireland is dealt with separately in the withdrawal agreement.
Finally, much of the right hon. Gentleman’s question was a complaint that Scotland was not specifically mentioned in these documents. Scotland is not specifically mentioned; Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I have always wished my right hon. Friend well, and my question is in this light. I have deep misgivings, on reading much of this document overnight, about the way that we will be treated with the backstop. When we read this, we realise that we are locking ourselves in to an arrangement from which we seem unable, therefore, to have the sovereign right to withdraw. That seems to me to be the biggest single issue here, which strips away the thing that we said when we wanted a vote to leave, which was that we took back control. I say to my right hon. Friend that my concern is that we have the sovereign right when we want to leave the UN; we have the sovereign right when we want to leave NATO; we have even the sovereign right when we want to leave the EU; but we do not have the sovereign right to leave this arrangement.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend says that the references to the backstop raise some difficult issues. I fully accept that they raise some difficult issues. I fully accept that, across the House, there are concerns in relation to the backstop—indeed, I share some of those concerns. These have not been easy decisions to take. It has been necessary, as I explained, and it would be necessary in any deal that we struck for our future partnership with the European Union, to agree a withdrawal agreement. We wanted to commit to ensure that we delivered no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and it has been clear that that withdrawal agreement needed to include this insurance policy.
My right hon. Friend talks about being held in the backstop. First, the backstop is not necessarily what will happen because we want to ensure that the future relationship is in place before the backstop is necessary. Secondly, in the circumstance that a temporary interim period was needed before the future relationship came into place, we would be able to choose a preference between the backstop and the extension of the implementation period. There are pros and cons on both sides of the argument and there will be Members who believe that one is better than the other.
There is a mechanism for coming out of the protocol if the backstop is in place. My right hon. Friend is right: that mechanism does require mutual consent. It is for both sides to agree that—I make no bones about that. However, it enables the backstop to be replaced in a number of circumstances, first and crucially if the future relationship supersedes it. Originally, that was the only point at which it could be superseded; now, alternative arrangements could replace it. But I repeat what I have always said: it is my intention to work to ensure that such an arrangement is not necessary and we are able to go into our future relationship when we come out of the implementation period.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister rightly asserts that there are two alternatives to her plan: no deal and no Brexit. The Government are making considerable investment in contingency planning for no deal. What contingency planning is she doing for no Brexit, including, for example, advising the Commission that article 50 may have to be withdrawn, and she herself preparing for the fact—however much she hates it—that the House may instruct her to carry out a people’s vote?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asks what plans we are making for no Brexit. We are making no plans for no Brexit, because this Government are going to deliver on the vote of the British people.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
If we took the best part of £39 billion over the next couple of years and spent it on public services and tax cuts, would that not be a wonderful boost to our economy and the public mood, and would it not be a better way of spending the money than buying 21 months—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This is extremely discourteous. The right hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard without being shouted down while he is speaking. I invite him to begin his question again and to deliver it in full.
John Redwood
Mr Speaker, I was saying, would it not be a wonderful boost to our economy and our public services if we spent that money on ourselves, rather than on 21 months of delay, massive business uncertainty and something that would sour the political and the public mood for the whole period?
The Prime Minister
As I said at a very early stage of the negotiations, the United Kingdom is a country that meets its legal obligations. That says a great deal about the sort of country we are. There are legal obligations. As I said in my statement, the sum of money my right hon. Friend refers to is considerably less than the European Union was originally proposing we would be required to pay as part of the financial settlement. But I remain firmly of the view that we as a country should ensure that we continue to meet our legal obligations, and we will do so.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I could stand here today and take the Prime Minister through the list of promises and pledges that she made to this House, and to us privately, about the future of Northern Ireland in the future relationship with the EU, but I fear it would be a waste of time, since she clearly does not listen.
This House and every Member in it now has a clear choice. The House has been left in a position where the choice is subjection to the rules and laws of others who may not have our interests at heart. In terms of Northern Ireland and our precious Union, five who have resigned today have all talked about the threat to the integrity of the Union. I congratulate them on and praise them for what they have said and done, and their strong actions.
As has just been said, this is £39 billion for nothing. The choice is now clear: we stand up for the United Kingdom—the whole United Kingdom and the integrity of the United Kingdom—or we vote for a vassal state, with the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is the choice.
The Prime Minister
I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman. He is right that he and I have had many discussions on this issue, and I hope that we will continue to be able to have many discussions on this issue. We have ensured throughout the negotiations that the border in Northern Ireland has been one of the key issues that we have been addressing.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to the commitments I made in terms of Northern Ireland and the future relationship. Those commitments remain absolutely. We are looking to ensure that we have the frictionless trade across borders that will enable us to not only deliver on our commitment for Northern Ireland, but ensure that we have frictionless trade between the United Kingdom and the whole of the rest of the European Union. Many aspects of the deal that we have agreed actually ensure that we are preserving the integrity of the United Kingdom.
There has been significant focus on the question of the backstop. As I say, the backstop is something that neither side—neither the United Kingdom, nor the European Union—wishes ever to see being exercised. Indeed, as I have said, in circumstances where there needs to be a period before the future relationship is introduced, there are alternative routes that can be taken.
If the right hon. Gentleman says to me that he is concerned that we have not considered Northern Ireland throughout this process—
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he has not said that, because I have remained committed to delivering on three things for Northern Ireland: no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland; for us to continue to maintain and respond to our obligations under the Belfast agreement; and to ensure that we protect the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Nobody but nobody can doubt the Prime Minister’s absolute commitment and dedication to doing her duty and trying to deliver on the result of the EU referendum, but the harsh, cruel truth is that this is not the promised deal. The reason why the people of this country are so fed up is that they have been made so many promises, none of which has been delivered upon, because they cannot be delivered upon.
I agree with the Prime Minister that we face three choices: we accept this agreement, for which I respectfully suggest there is now no majority; we have no deal, which would be profoundly irresponsible and catastrophic for our country; or we have no Brexit and remain in the European Union—the best deal that we have with the European Union. On that basis, will she at least undertake today not to rule out taking this back to the British people and having a people’s vote?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid, on that particular issue, that I will disappoint my right hon. Friend. I am not going to change the position I have taken in this House and, indeed, more widely. I believe that it is the duty of Members of this Parliament to ensure that we deliver on the choice that was made by the British people—a choice that this Parliament overwhelmingly decided to give to them. That means that we will not be taking the option that she said of remaining in the European Union, but will indeed be leaving the European Union, and that will happen on 29 March next year.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has once again told the House that we will be leaving the customs union, but the truth is that we will be remaining in a customs union, both in the transition and in the backstop arrangement, which can be ended only with the agreement of the EU. The truth is also that the only way to protect jobs, investment and an open border in Northern Ireland in the long term is to remain within it. Will the Prime Minister now look the British people in the eye and admit that remaining in a customs union is in our national economic interest, because without it we will be poorer as a country?
The Prime Minister
What is in our national interest is ensuring that we continue to have a good trading partnership with the European Union once we have left. That is why we have put forward a proposal, which is reflected in the outline political declaration, for a free trade area in goods. It is why we have also put forward a proposal that would ensure the frictionless trade of goods across the border. The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree. A customs union is not the only way to ensure that we continue to have a good trading relationship with the European Union. We have put forward a proposal that is reflected in the outline political declaration to achieve that, while also ensuring that we are able to take advantage of operating an independent trade policy.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
These 585 pages are a testament to broken promises, failed negotiations and abject capitulation to the EU. Does my right hon. Friend understand that they represent a list of failures—on Northern Ireland, on ECJ issues, on indefinite extension of time, on customs, on full independence of trade and of fisheries and, above all, on our truly leaving the EU, because it will control our laws? Furthermore, there have been some very serious breaches of ministerial responsibilities, the ministerial code and collective responsibility.
The Prime Minister
What we are looking at here is a withdrawal agreement that determines the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and a declaration that identifies the scope and structure of our future relationship. Our future relationship is one that will not see the European Union controlling our laws because, in those areas where we choose to align with the European Union, it will be for this Parliament to decide that, and that decision will therefore be taken here by the United Kingdom. There will not be European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. That is what we have negotiated in the outline political declaration for our future relationship.
I recognise my hon. Friend as one of the Members of this House who has campaigned on this issue probably since the day—maybe even since before—he came into this House. He has continued to campaign on this issue with a passion, and I recognise the concerns that he has expressed. As Prime Minister and as a Government, it is our duty to ensure that we put together a deal that not only respects the vote of the British people—it does, in the ways that I have said, and it also ends free movement—but does so in a way that protects jobs. That is why I believe it is important not only that we take back control in the areas mentioned, but that we maintain a good trading relationship with the European Union, as well as having good trading relationships elsewhere. That is in our economic interest and in our national interest, and that is what we will deliver.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The political declaration includes passenger name records and the Prüm fingerprint database, but makes no reference to the crucial Schengen Information System II criminal database, which we check 500 million times a year, or to a replica European arrest warrant, and that is at a time when cross-border crime and security threats are at their highest ever level. The Prime Minister knows that these measures save lives, stop criminals and stop terrorists, so how can she of all people say, with her head and her heart, that this public safety downgrade is in the national interest?
The Prime Minister
First, of course, there is reference to us agreeing expeditious, swift and effective arrangements to enable the United Kingdom and member states to extradite suspected and convicted persons effectively and expeditiously. That will be part of the measure, and the instrument that is used will be part of further negotiations that will take place. The right hon. Lady is right to say that SIS II is important to us. There are two further areas of exchange of information that I and the Home Secretary believe are important—SIS II and the European Criminal Records Information System—and we will take those matters forward with the European Union in our further negotiations.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I greatly respect the Prime Minister’s efforts in seeking to achieve an agreement, but I do not believe that this is a good deal for Britain’s long-term future. She recognises that she has had to make unpalatable choices, and in reality, there are clearly three choices now ahead of our country, and they are crucial choices, especially for young people, who will have to live with them for the longest. The Prime Minister said that this is in the national interest, so why not allow people in our nation to have their say? If that was good enough before, why is it not good enough now?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has already raised that issue, as have Opposition Members, but this House chose to ask the people of the United Kingdom whether they wished to remain in or leave the European Union. There was an overwhelming vote in Parliament to do that—[Interruption.] There was an overwhelming vote in Parliament: it was about 6:1, so anybody who says that it was not overwhelming is wrong. The British people exercised their vote in numbers that we have never seen before, and the result was that we should leave the European Union. With other European issues, I have seen other countries and member states of the European Union taking matters back to their populace and holding a referendum, and when the vote has gone against what the European Union wanted, there has then effectively been a second vote—a sort of “go back and think again” vote—but I do not think it is right that we should do that in this country. We gave people the choice; we should deliver on the decision they took.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
We have been going for about an hour now and it is quite clear that not a single right hon. or hon. Member has supported the plans that the Prime Minister has set out. It is clear that she cannot command the House of Commons on these proposals. In fact, I am almost tempted to ask Conservative Members to put their hands up if they actually support the Prime Minister on this set of proposals. [Interruption.] Not one. In that case, she says that remaining in the European Union is an option, so how can the British people fulfil that choice, if that is what they choose?
The Prime Minister
I apologise, because I did not quite hear the question, but I think the hon. Gentleman said that staying in the European Union was an option—
The Prime Minister
No, I said that there was a risk of no Brexit at all, but the Government are determined to deliver on the vote that the British people took to leave the European Union.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend—and she is unquestionably honourable—said that we would leave the customs union; annex 2 says otherwise. My right hon. Friend said that she would maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom; a whole protocol says otherwise. My right hon. Friend said that we would be out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice; article 174 says otherwise. As what my right hon. Friend says, and what my right hon. Friend does, no longer match, should I not write to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady)?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend refers to the articles that relate to the protocol in the withdrawal agreement. I have been absolutely clear that some difficult choices have had to be made in relation to that protocol. Those choices have been made because I believe—I strongly and firmly believe—that it is important that we ensure there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. But as I have said before, and as my hon. Friend has heard me say before, it is not only our intention, but we will be working to ensure, that that protocol does not need to be put into place.
What we are negotiating, alongside that withdrawal agreement, is not something that will be of a temporary nature, but what will be a future relationship with the European Union that will last for decades to come. In that future relationship, we will no longer be a member of the customs union. We will no longer be a member of the single market. An end to free movement will have been delivered. The integrity of the United Kingdom will have been maintained. The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the United Kingdom will end, and we will come out of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. So I ask my hon. Friend to consider the nature of the future relationship that we will be delivering with the European Union, which does indeed deliver on the commitments I have made.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
With Northern Ireland potentially swimming in the deep end of the pool, can the Prime Minister confirm that, based on the British Government’s own logic, no economic border between Wales and England would arise should my country decide to front crawl down to them?
The Prime Minister
As we look at the proposals for the trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, I am conscious of the significant trade that takes place between Ireland and Wales, and the importance that that has for the Welsh ports. If we look at the future relationship, we have made a proposal for frictionless trade that would protect the business of the Welsh ports and ensure we have that as part of the good trading relationship for the future.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the majority in the country, in Parliament and in this party accept the result of the referendum?
We back my right hon. Friend in trying to get the sovereignty she has argued for, and the prospects of prosperity, security and a fruitful partnership across the channel, the North sea and across the world.
The alternatives, if we do not go through with this, are the probability of crashing out and the possibility of a Government led by the Leader of the Opposition, neither of which is a desirable alternative.
The Prime Minister
I believe, as I think my hon. Friend does, that it is important for us to move forward in not only delivering on the vote, but ensuring that we do so in a way that protects our prosperity, and people’s jobs and livelihoods for the future. But more than that, there are significant opportunities for this country, once we leave the European Union, to develop that brighter future with those further trading relationships around the rest of the world, while keeping a good trading relationship with our closest partners in the EU.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister now recognise that she made a catastrophic error when she decided to kowtow to the fantasy extremist beliefs of the Brexiteers in her own party, instead of bringing the country together? Their views are impossible to bring about, and they are now openly plotting against her after she has tried to do her best in the negotiation. Surely she now needs to listen to the fact that there is no majority in this House for the botched deal she has brought back. She should think again and see whether, in this House, there can be a consensual way forward that leaves her Brextremists out in the cold where they belong.
The Prime Minister
I have kowtowed to no one. The instruction I take is the instruction that was given to every Member of this House by the British people in the referendum in 2016.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It may surprise the House, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). Prime Minister, the whole House accepts that you have done your best, but the Labour party has made it plain today that it will vote against this deal. The SNP will vote against it. The Liberals will vote against it. The DUP will vote against it—our key ally in this place will vote against it. Over 80 Tory Back Benchers—well, it is 84 now, and it is going up by the hour—will vote against it. It is therefore mathematically impossible to get this deal through the House of Commons. The stark reality, Prime Minister, is that it was dead on arrival at St Tommy’s before you stood up, so I plead with you to accept the political reality of the situation you now face.
The Prime Minister
I say to my right hon. Friend that I respect the fact that he obviously holds very clear views on the issue of our membership of the European Union and the sort of relationship that we should have with the European Union thereafter. We will go forward with the final negotiations towards that European Council meeting on 25 November. When a deal is brought back, it will be for Members of this House not just to look at the details of that deal, but to consider the vote of the British people and our duty to deliver on the vote of the British people. This is the deal that has been negotiated with the European Union. We have to finalise it, and the vote will come when we have a meaningful vote. It will be for Members of this House to determine how they wish to vote at that time and to remember, when they cast their vote, the importance of ensuring that we deliver on the vote of the British people.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be aware that the main financial backer of Brexit, Mr Arron Banks, is now under criminal investigation by the National Crime Agency because of serious doubts about the true source of the money he spent on the leave campaign. Did the Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary in 2016, decline a request from the security services for Mr Banks to be investigated?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that of course we do not comment in this House on individual criminal investigations that take place.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
There are many ironies in this whole Brexit process. One of them, as we just heard, is that colleagues on the Government Benches are going to use a parliamentary vote that 11 of us voted for last December and for which we received a torrent of abuse, accusations of treachery and betrayal, and threats of deselection—but as we have heard so many times, we are where we are. I pay tribute to the fact that the Prime Minister did get agreement in Cabinet. Can she reassure us that regardless of however many ministerial resignations there are between now and that vote, the agreement will come to Parliament and Parliament will have its say, and that she is clear that voting for that agreement is in the national interest?
The Prime Minister
I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that obviously we have the step of the European Union Council in finalising the deal, but a deal, when finalised, will indeed be brought to Parliament. As I suggested earlier, it will be for every Member of this House to determine their vote in the national interest.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has carried out her mission on this with no small sense of duty, but it has been a failure, and it has turned out to be a humiliation. This was sold to the people as taking back control, but the promises of the right-wing nationalists who drove this have been shown to have turned to dust. Instead, we are being asked to sign over control of vast swathes of our economy with no say over them while paying tens of billions for the privilege. Is it not the case that far from taking back control, this is the biggest voluntary surrender of sovereignty in living memory, and that it is time to think again?
The Prime Minister
My answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is no. He referred to the £39 billion, which, of course, was the financial settlement that is in the withdrawal agreement, which is part of the overall package of the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship. The future relationship that we are negotiating with the European Union is designed—and the outline political declaration makes this clear—to deliver on exactly the issues that mattered to the British people when they voted for Brexit. Of course, as I have said many times in the House, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
This backstop is completely intolerable, and I feel confident that even in the unlikely event that legislation for it reaches the House, it will be ferociously opposed. Will my right hon. Friend therefore accept that this deal could well be a choice by the Government to have no deal imposed on them at the last minute, and will she therefore trigger all the implementation of no-deal contingencies now?
The Prime Minister
As I indicated in response to an earlier question, we will be continuing the no-deal preparations, because I am conscious that we have further stages in relation to this process: the European Council, and, of course, bringing this matter back to the House—and, as my hon. Friend has recognised, that is not just the meaningful vote, but the legislation that must then go through. As I said earlier, recognising that we have that European Council, and that meaningful vote to take place in the House, we will be continuing our no-deal preparations.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
While it might be tempting to watch the much vaunted Tory Brexit festival, this is deeply serious stuff. The Prime Minister knows that according to her Treasury’s own analysis, every single one of her plans means people losing their jobs. So will she look at the plan which means our losing the least number of jobs, which is the least damaging, and which may, unlike her plan, win support across the House—the plan to remain part of the customs union and the single market?
The Prime Minister
We will be leaving the customs union and leaving the single market.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Whether we voted remain or leave, whether we sit on this side of the House or the other, we know that millions of people voted for Brexit because they were anxious about the futures, about their children and about their families. Away from the Westminster bubble, we must remember to consider those vast communities when we consider the outcomes today. We know that it is no deal that would be most damaging to them.
May I ask the Prime Minister what the response has been from the business councils that she set up—those major employers in the country that will protect those jobs?
The Prime Minister
Let me first thank my right hon. Friend for focusing people’s sights on people outside the Chamber, because they are the ones we must consider when we are looking at our decisions in relation to this deal when it comes forward.
A number of quotes have come from industry about the deal. It has been said, for example, that
“it delivers a clear path ahead that business so desperately needs” .
The Federation of Small Businesses has said that it
“brings with it some certainty that our small businesses have craved.”
Businesses out there have been looking for the certainty that a deal will bring. They have also been concerned that we focus on that free trade area and on that frictionless trade across borders, which is, of course, exactly what the Government have done.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Can the Prime Minister guarantee to the House that at the end of March we will continue to have frictionless supply chains, and that at the end of this process we will be in control of our borders, we will have brought back all the judicial powers that we have surrendered, and we will be free from the European Court’s jurisdictions?
The Prime Minister
I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that the future relationship we are negotiating with the European Union absolutely delivers on the points that he made about no jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and taking back control of our borders so that free movement is ended. We have also based the concept of the free trade area on the need for that frictionless trade in goods, to ensure that the people whose jobs depend on those supply chains do not see those jobs go, and that not only are we able to retain those jobs, but, with the other trade agreements that we are able to bring forward once we are outside the European Union, we can enhance the economy and create more jobs in this country.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on her exceptional efforts to honour the result of the referendum and to achieve a deal with the EU under the most difficult and demanding circumstances? Will she elaborate on the scale and breadth of the future partnerships agreed on security and defence?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to do that for my right hon. Friend. There are two areas in relation to security. One, of course, is internal security on which I have answered a number of questions, and where we intend to maintain co-operation in a number of areas where we are currently working very closely with our European partners. The other is external security and defence; we will have an independent foreign policy—it will be for us to make decisions—but what we have negotiated, and is set out in the outline political declaration, is an ability for the UK, where it makes sense to do so, to work with our European partners on matters of security and defence, and on issues like the imposition of sanctions where it makes sense for those sanctions to be Europe-wide rather than simply to cover the EU, and for the UK to be part of them. We will have our independent ability to deliver on sanctions, but we will co-operate with our partners in the EU. That retains our independence but also ensures that we are able to act at all times in the best interests of the UK and of maintaining our security and defence.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Prime Minister knows that her deal is dead and that no deal would be a disaster, so we risk chaos, job losses, environmental rules torn up, the NHS in crisis. That was never the will of the people; they did not vote for that. This is not a parlour game; it is about real people’s real lives, and those risks can only be addressed if we put aside party politics. So I appeal to the Prime Minister again: why will she not give the people of this country a vote—a people’s vote—on where this country goes next?
The Prime Minister
I could refer the hon. Lady to answers I have given earlier, but let me repeat my answer: this Parliament gave the people a vote, the people voted to leave, and we will deliver on the people’s vote.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), I believe these issues are so complex that one should not deal with them on a personal basis, but will the Prime Minister help me in my loyalty by answering my question? What if the Brexit Secretary is right: what if his devastating resignation letter is correct and we are likely, or possibly, going to be locked permanently in a backstop arrangement? What if, therefore, she loses this vote in Parliament, which is very likely: can she promise me that, whatever happens in this vote, she will deliver Brexit at the end of March?
The Prime Minister
First, we will be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019; that is a set date and I am determined that we will deliver on that whatever happens in between. On the backstop question, as I have said, neither side wants the backstop arrangement to be operated, but if it was, it is no more than a temporary construct. There are various aspects to this, and I will draw my hon. Friend’s attention to one or two of them. First, it is not possible on the legal basis of article 50, under which this withdrawal agreement is set, for it to set a permanent relationship for the future. That is explicitly referred to in the withdrawal agreement: it does not establish a permanent relationship. That is inherent in the operation of the article 50 legal base. I also say to my hon. Friend that one of the things we have got removed from this protocol is the idea that was there at one stage that if we had moved on to the future relationship and the British Government chose to change that future relationship, the backstop could be reinserted; it cannot be—once it is superseded, it cannot be revived.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on proving yet again that we cannot square the wheel. Can she say, hand on heart, whether she believes that what she has negotiated is better than the deal we have now?
The Prime Minister
I firmly believe that this country’s best days are ahead of us. We will get a good deal with the European Union and take advantage of our independence outside the EU with our trade deals around the rest of the world.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My own constituency, like the rest of the country, is deeply divided today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was always going to be a really difficult moment when the theory of a perfect Brexit met the cold reality of hard choices and compromise? Does she agree that this is absolutely not the moment to walk away from our responsibilities to govern and to provide this country with leadership at this difficult time?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do agree with my right hon. Friend. This is a complex negotiation, and it does require difficult choices to be made. The challenge for all of us in this House is to make those choices not according to what we wish the world could be like but according to the reality of the world that we see, and to make those choices pragmatically and in the interests of the British people.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister insists that this deal is in the national interest, but specifically on the economy, the agreement will ensure that we have no say in the rules that govern how we trade, it does not include services as part of free and frictionless trade, and it offers only the illusion of future trade deals. Given all this, does the Treasury believe that we will grow faster and create more jobs under the negotiated agreement or under our current relationship with the European Union?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady refers to the withdrawal agreement. What is important in terms of the relationship that will persist for decades between this country and the European Union is the future partnership that we negotiate with the EU. As we have said, the outline political declaration is based on the concept of a free trade area and on ensuring that we can continue to have that good trade relationship. I can assure her, as I have assured hon. Members across the House before, that when the meaningful vote is before this House, Members will have the appropriate analysis to inform them in coming to their decision.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It will be blindingly obvious to the entire country that the Prime Minister’s deal cannot pass this House. People will find it unforgivable that we are running out of road and that in 134 days we will be crashing out of the European Union with no deal and no transition, with catastrophic consequences for all the communities that we represent in this House. May I urge her to think again about whether at this stage we should go back to the people and present them with the options, rather than just stumbling on regardless into something that will have such profound implications for all of our lives?
The Prime Minister
The nature of Brexit and our future relationship with the European Union will be a matter that will come before this House in the vote that the House will take. Members of the House will have various issues to consider when they take that vote. I say to my hon. Friend, as I have said to other hon. and right hon. Members, that I firmly believe that, having given the choice as to whether we should leave the EU to the British people, it is right and proper, and indeed our duty as a Parliament and a Government, to deliver on that vote.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
We now know that during the transition, which may well have to be extended, we in the UK will give up our say over the rules that govern large parts of our economy, and that if the backstop comes into play, we will not unilaterally be able to leave it. How is giving up our current say and influence for no say and influence taking back control?
The Prime Minister
What the hon. Lady describes in terms of the transition period was clear. I answered questions on it in the House back in March when the European Council agreed on the concept of the transition period. That was absolutely clear. The point of the transition period is to move towards the future relationship, and the future relationship is one in which we will have the ability to determine our position. Yes, we put forward a proposal in the White Paper which had frictionless trade and a common rulebook, but alongside that common rulebook was a parliamentary lock on determining whether or not this country would accept any changes in those rules.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Government are preparing to give £39 billion to the EU. There is no legal obligation to do so, and we are going to get nothing in return. That is £60 million for each and every constituency in this country. If I had £60 million in Wellingborough, I would have the Isham bypass, I would have our roads mended properly, I would have an urgent care centre at the Isebrook Hospital and I would have millions of pounds over. Please, Prime Minister, use that money in this country—do not give it to the EU.
The Prime Minister
The premise of my hon. Friend’s question was that there was no legal obligation for us to pay anything to the European Union. I have to say that I believe that is not the case; I believe there are legal obligations for this country in relation to the financial settlement with the European Union. As I said earlier, I believe that we are a country that abides by our legal obligations.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
This deal is not in the national interest, and the Prime Minister knows that. It leaves us less secure, less influential and more isolated. However, can the Prime Minister set out what scenarios would lead to no Brexit at all? As far as I can tell, there are only two: first, she calls a general election, which I assume she will not be doing, or, secondly, she allows a people’s vote. Which of those two is it going to be?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman described what he thinks the position will be for the United Kingdom if we go ahead with this deal. He talks about our being more isolated; that will not be the case. The United Kingdom will be continuing to play its role on the world stage in a whole variety of organisations that we will be involved in, but also in the way in which we negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world and the way in which we support and co-operate with parts of the rest of the world on matters such as security and defence. There is no sense in which this United Kingdom is going to be isolated when we leave the European Union.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
For many months, this House was assured that it would have the full future framework before it when it was voting on the withdrawal agreement. I was encouraged to hear the Prime Minister say that further detail will emerge, as that will be critical for jobs and employment in my constituency. Can the Prime Minister outline when we will see that full future framework?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend because this gives me an opportunity to set out the process that will be followed. We will now be entering into further intense negotiations with the European Union, such that a full future framework can be delivered to the European Council as part of the overall package. That will then, of course, be published and available for Members of this House to see. I am conscious that it is important—while we cannot agree legal text on the future relationship, because we cannot do that until we have left the European Union—that we have sufficient detail in that future framework so that Members are able to have confidence in the future relationship with the European Union when they come to vote in the meaningful vote.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have known the Prime Minister all her parliamentary career. I do not always agree with her, but I know her to be a woman of courage. I feel sorry for her this morning—let down by the disloyalty of so many of her colleagues. I also feel sorry for her because we have given her an impossible task. We know increasingly, in this country and in this House, that there is no deal better than staying in the European Union, and it is time that we did something to recognise that, be courageous and take this back to the people.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that the answer I give him, despite the fact that we have known each other throughout my career in this House, will be no different from that I have given to other right hon. and hon. Members in relation to taking the vote back the people. It was a decision of this Parliament by six to one that the people should have that choice, and they exercised their vote, as I said earlier, in numbers that we have not seen before. It is only right and proper that this Parliament—this Government—delivers on that vote.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Prime Minister describe any surer way of frustrating the referendum result, and ultimately remaining in the European Union, than to accept a Hotel California Brexit deal, which ensures that we can never truly leave the EU, with all its manipulative, entangling and undemocratic practices?
The Prime Minister
We are leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019. We are negotiating a future relationship with the European Union that will, indeed, deliver on the vote of the British people in the referendum by bringing an end to free movement and an end to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and by coming out of the common agricultural policy and out of the common fisheries policy. These are issues to which I have previously referred, and we will be leaving on 29 March 2019.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister is presenting to us today is not in the national interest, and it is very clear that it will not make us better off. She may not be aware that an overnight YouGov poll shows that 63% of the British public are against this deal, with 64% favouring a people’s vote if the deal is rejected by this House, and it is very clear from the contributions this morning that that is what will happen. Will she now listen to the millions of people across our country and give them a say on what Brexit will actually mean, rather than on the false promises on which the vote to leave was predicated?
The Prime Minister
The documents were actually published yesterday evening: 500 pages of the withdrawal agreement, plus the outline political declaration and the joint statement. Once again, the hon. Lady’s assumption is that we should, in some sense, try to go back on the vote of the British people. I believe absolutely that we should not and that we should ensure that we do leave the European Union. That is the decision that was taken by the British people, and that is the decision we will deliver on.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
When I resigned from the Government in June, I called for the suspension of article 50 because I feared this likely parliamentary impasse. The Prime Minister is a thoroughly decent person who has public service running through her veins. With that in mind, and with an eye on the importance of the responsibility of government, will she outline the legal, legislative and political requirements for suspending article 50 or, indeed, revoking it?
The Prime Minister
As I think my hon. Friend knows, there has been a case before the courts on the issue of the extension of article 50. The Government’s position is clear: we will not extend article 50.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Articles 14, 87, 89, 158 and 174 of this agreement mean that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will continue to reign supreme across the UK, for four years after the transition period in some respects, for eight years after the transition period in other respects and indefinitely in the case of Northern Ireland. In what respects has the Prime Minister’s red line on the European Court of Justice survived this agreement?
The Prime Minister
I was very clear when we brought back the agreement in the December 2017 joint report that, in relation to citizens’ rights for example, there would continue to be an ability for the interpretation of the European Court of Justice in relation to European Union law on those rights to be considered for a period of time beyond the end of the transition period and that it would then cease.
It is not the case that Northern Ireland will be indefinitely under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The future relationship that we are negotiating with the European Union will ensure that the United Kingdom is removed from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. If the hon. and learned Lady looks at the proposed governance arrangements, she will see that we are very clear that the court of one party cannot determine matters in relation to another party.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has repeated today that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so can she explain why there is nothing in the withdrawal agreement that makes the withdrawal agreement legally contingent upon the implementation and agreement of a legal relationship for the future?
The Prime Minister
There are, indeed, clauses that link the withdrawal agreement to the future relationship. The legal term “best endeavours” is used in a number of places in relation to this matter to ensure that that future relationship is in place. Obviously, as I said earlier, we are still to negotiate further details in relation to that future relationship, and it is the determination of both sides, as expressed in these documents, that that future relationship should be capable of being put into place at the end of the transition period.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister made a very dignified statement in difficult circumstances, but does she realise that when people outside this House read these hundreds of pages of Eurospeak, they will realise that, in a way, we are being sold out? We have been sold out by our negotiators, who have allowed the EU to take the lead. Will she not accept that at this stage not only are we all being collectively sold out, but the people of Northern Ireland are being sold out absolutely?
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Lady in relation to the suggestion that in some sense the European Commission and the European Union have given nothing away to the UK during these negotiations. These have been tough negotiations; this is a complex matter. For example, as I referred to in my statement, the EU has been clear for some time that the choice we had in our future relationship was a binary one between the Norway model or the Canada model, but it has now accepted that that is not the case and there is a bespoke agreement for the United Kingdom. They said we could not share security capabilities, but, as is clear in the outline political declaration, we do have access to certain security capabilities. They said we could not preserve the invisible border between Northern Ireland and Ireland without splitting the UK’s customs territories—that is now no longer the case. These are all issues that our negotiators have negotiated in the interests of the United Kingdom.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The boost to our economy that was referred to earlier and the necessary protection for our constituents’ jobs can occur only if UK industry has a frictionless trade area and deep regulatory co-operation. But UK financial services and UK industry also need certainty, so will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that the future political framework will contain a common rulebook and a deep customs arrangement?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend has seen, the outline political declaration makes reference to the free trade area that we will be negotiating with the European Union and, indeed, to the need to ensure that we have those good arrangements across our border. As was outlined in the joint statement that accompanied the outline political declaration, there are two areas, in particular, where further negotiation is continuing. One of them is this issue of the trade relationship. The other is, as I indicated in my response to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), aspects of the security relationship that we are continuing to negotiate. But we continue to work on the basis that my hon. Friend has set out of the importance of that frictionless trade across borders.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady has been a professional colleague for more than 20 years, and I personally saw how hard she worked during the 2011 riots. This whole House recognises the dedication and hard work she has put into this 585-page agreement. However, because of her huge parliamentary experience, she will recognise that this agreement does not command a majority in this House and that in the 10 days to follow before the EU signs off this agreement she is likely to face challenges within her own party. In those circumstances, in our constitutional arrangement, when politics is broken, one can only put the question back to the British people.
The Prime Minister
I think that having had the vote in 2016, the British people will look at this Chamber, this House and this Parliament and say what people say to me when I go to talk to them on the doorsteps, which is, “Actually, we have taken the decision to leave. Just get on with it. Just deliver.”
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Prime Minister, you said that it would be our choice whether we go into an implementation period or a backstop if the agreement cannot be reached. But this document says that the protocol gives the UK a choice either to implement the backstop or to seek an extension of the implementation period, which it does by requesting that. How is that our choice and not theirs?
The Prime Minister
It is our choice on which of those we wish to do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the extension of the implementation period needs agreement with the EU, and that is why I have described this as a choice. It is for us to say whether we wish the backstop or the implementation period to be extended, but she is absolutely right that the extension would be a matter for negotiation with the EU. If we get to that point, there would be arguments on both sides about which would be preferable for the UK, just as there would be arguments on both sides within the EU, because the backstop is not a situation the EU wants either.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I have a great deal of sympathy for the Prime Minister—she has walked the Via Dolorosa set out for her by her own party—but the false choice she is offering this place is between a deal that is dead before it has even been read by most people in this House and no deal at all. Is it not now time for the British people to take back control from this place and for her to extend article 50 and let the people decide in a people’s vote?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I have given previously to that question.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend tells the House that we will leave the EU at the end of March 2019, but we have also heard from her and hon. Members on both sides of the House that that is not the case. With due respect, under this deal we will have no unilateral way to leave and, worse still, there will be no incentive for the EU to let us go.
The Prime Minister
We will be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. After that date, we will no longer be a member of the EU. Yes, we have agreed in the transition period that we will continue to operate with the EU very much as we do today, and that is to avoid a cliff edge for business on 29 March and to ensure that business can adapt to the changes in our future relationship. I repeat that from the 29 March 2019 we will no longer be a member of the EU.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
During the course of yesterday, and excluding the Cabinet, can the Prime Minister tell the House which organisations and individuals were informed and briefed on the proposed deal, in which order they were briefed and what hierarchy was applied?
The Prime Minister
Members of the Cabinet came together yesterday to look at the withdrawal agreement and the outline political declaration. The information was made available to them once the text had been finalised. Those negotiations carried on quite late, and the Cabinet was able to take its decision on the basis of the proper papers.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Why did the Prime Minister say that rejecting the deal risked no Brexit? Can she quantify that risk and say how it might occur?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there may be those in the House, as we have heard from several Opposition Members, who wish to ensure we do not leave the EU. I believe that it is important that we do leave the EU and that we do so on the basis of a good future relationship with the EU.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It is obvious that the Prime Minister does not command a majority in the House. People who support leave know the deal gives power to the EU instead of bringing it back, and people who support remain know it is not as good as the one we have. We have got to this position because she has been playing games with Brexit from the beginning, including by calling a general election in the middle of the negotiation period. Will she now do the right thing, go back to the people and let them say whether the deal is good enough? It would not be a rerun of the referendum. The first was based on promises; this one would be based on facts.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Is there not a danger that in getting hung up on issues such as the backstop, which although immensely important is something that all sides wish to avoid, or the transition period, which is by definition temporary, we lose sight of the really important issue, which is the future relationship with the EU? That is what we should be focusing on and discussing, and that is what our constituents expect us to deliver. Is it not the case that however they voted in the referendum, the vast majority of Members of this House voted to trigger article 50, and the public expect us to deliver on our promise? Members on the Government Benches in particular should be careful what they wish for in making it harder to move to that position.
The Prime Minister
I support my right hon. Friend’s comments. He is absolutely right. There has of course been a lot of focus on the backstop, and I recognise why, because there are genuine concerns about its operation. As he says, others have referred to the transition or implementation period. What will actually determine our relationship with the European Union for decades ahead, though, is the future relationship that we negotiate with the European Union. That is what will determine the futures of my right hon. Friend’s constituents, of my constituents and of people right across the whole United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I take this opportunity to inform the House that we have now had 50 questions from Back Benchers, so may I please appeal to colleagues to put short and pointed questions, as exemplified by the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne)?
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
No deal would have catastrophic consequences for UK manufacturing; this deal will not pass Parliament. Why does the Prime Minister persist in seeking to achieve the unachievable? With every day of delay, we are one step closer to the cliff. To go over that cliff without an agreement would be the ultimate betrayal of the British national interest.
The Prime Minister
When the deal comes to the House, Members will of course have a choice as to whether to accept it. I understand that motor manufacturers have welcomed the deal; they recognise that it is a step forward in ensuring that we can deliver on what matters for them in the future relationship and trading partnership with the EU.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Many of the questions asked by colleagues today would be addressed if there were more detail on the future relationship, but of course it has been the EU negotiators, not the British negotiators, who have refused to discuss the future relationship before the withdrawal agreement is agreed, so I thank the Prime Minister for the outline of the future relationship. Will she clarify that we will get more detail on that future relationship before the critical vote in this House?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am very happy to confirm that for my hon. Friend. She refers to the position of the EU negotiators; in fact, I think that many feel that they have been looking more at the future relationship than they had expected. We will ensure that more detail is available for Members of this House before the meaningful vote.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that the country faces three choices: no Brexit; any agreement that she is able to finalise with the EU and get through this House; and no deal. She has also just said that we will get an economic analysis—an impact assessment. Will she undertake to ensure that that impact assessment includes a comparison of the current deal we have—no Brexit—and the one that she proposes to put to a meaningful vote in this House? To withhold that from the House would be unacceptable.
The Prime Minister
We will ensure, in advance of the time at which people take their decision in relation to the meaningful vote, that proper analysis is available to enable people to make a judgment between the deal that is being proposed and alternative arrangements.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister is well known for her dancing; sadly, having seen the withdrawal agreement, it is now clear whose tune she has been dancing to. My right hon. Friend campaigned for remain and she voted for remain. Surely it is now in the national interest for her to leave, perhaps following a short transition period.
The Prime Minister
I note the way my hon. Friend carefully tried to weave into his question various references to matters that are perhaps not entirely relevant to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. Every Member of this House will have a decision to take when the deal is brought back. I believe it is important that we have a deal that delivers on the vote of the British people, which I believe the deal does, but in a way that protects jobs, people’s security and, of course, the integrity of our United Kingdom.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Today is truly a sad day for our country: the Government are collapsing while we are riddled with food banks, child poverty rises and 30% of workers are in hardship jobs. What from this three-page wish list does the Prime Minister suggest will change this country’s fortunes for the better?
The Prime Minister
First, absolute poverty is in fact at a low, and we have seen in the figures that came out earlier this week that real wages have been growing faster recently than at any time in the past decade, so the hon. Lady’s portrayal of this country is not fair. She asks what will ensure and improve the future of the British people; well, first of all, getting a good trade deal with the European Union is important, and that is what we are working towards—that is what the outline political declaration sets out—and we are also ensuring that we can have good trade deals around the rest of the world. I have to point out to the hon. Lady, given the Benches on which she sits, that what is necessary for all that is the good economic management that the Conservative Government have produced.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has in good faith negotiated the best deal on the withdrawal agreement that she could. It does not please Brussels, it does not please London, and it probably does not please any Member of this House; nevertheless, do we not owe it to the British people to scrutinise it carefully, together with the remaining documents that my right hon. Friend will bring back from the summit in November, to see whether it is in the best interests of the British people, rather than crashing out of the EU with no deal?
The Prime Minister
It is important that there is some further negotiation to fill out the details of the future relationship, and as my hon. Friend says, it will be important for Members of this House, when they have the meaningful vote, to consider those documents, alongside the analysis that the Government will provide, so that they have the full information to be able to take that vote and, as he says, in doing so recall the duty that I believe we have to deliver on the referendum vote.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is clear that this deal is not as good as the one we currently have: it will make the country worse off. It is also clear that there is no majority in the House for the Prime Minister’s deal or for no deal. She has ruled out extending article 50 or a people’s vote, so what is the plan if she does not get support for her deal in the House?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady will know the process that the House has set out in relation to that matter. In praising membership of the European Union, she and a number of other Members on the Labour Benches have effectively suggested that we should set aside the vote of the British people and remain in the European Union. That would not be the right thing to do; we must deliver on the vote of the British people.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
Outside in the real world, many employers and employees are depending on all of us to take responsible steps to protect their jobs. Does the Prime Minister agree with techUK, which represents more than 1 million jobs in this country in the fast-growing tech sector, and which states that failing to achieve parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement would “disrupt supply chains”, “hit investment” and “lead to job losses”, and that
“small and medium sized businesses would be worst affected”?
The Prime Minister
When the time comes for Members of this House to vote in the meaningful vote and to consider the deal that is before them, they will indeed, as I said earlier, need not only to recall the duty to deliver on the vote of the British people but to look very closely at the implications of the vote that they cast. It is the jobs and futures of our constituents that should be at the forefront of our minds.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Given how important immigration was for some leave voters, will the Prime Minister guarantee today that her immigration White Paper will be published and debated before the meaningful vote on the deal?
The Prime Minister
The issue of immigration was indeed important for many people during the vote. They wanted free movement to end. What we are negotiating is an end to free movement. We will publish the immigration White Paper in due course.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Prime Minister has worked tirelessly over the past 18 months to achieve this draft agreement. My constituency voted for Brexit for many reasons. Chief among them was to reverse 40 years of economic decline. In her opinion, does this agreement provide the framework within which we can revive the economy in coastal towns such as Lowestoft, whether in trade, manufacturing or fishing?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I believe that it does. Crucially for fishing, we will be out of the common fisheries policy and will be able to work to enhance the fortunes of our fishing industry. Alongside this agreement, it is important to look at what the Government are doing elsewhere—for example, through our modern industrial strategy—to ensure that we are delivering an economy that works for everyone in all parts of the UK.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has been very determined to respect the will of the people. More than 60% of my constituency in Batley and Spen voted to leave, believing that they would be taking back control, but this deal’s backstop will be policed by a third party. Today, she has said that it will not be used, it will not be necessary and it will be temporary, but in order for it not to be used, we will have to pay—who knows what?—potentially massive amounts to the EU to extend the transition period. How is making my constituents and the country poorer taking back control?
The Prime Minister
The best way of ensuring that the backstop is not used is to get the future relationship—the future partnership—with the European Union in place by 1 January 2021.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that, after 31 December 2020, other nations will not have access to anything other than the surplus fish stocks in British waters that the UK fleet cannot catch, even if the implementation period is extended?
The Prime Minister
We have not changed our position, which is that, as of December 2020, the UK should be an independent coastal state able to negotiate the issue of access to its waters for the following year and, obviously, for thereafter.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has been on her feet now for almost two hours. She has talked about making difficult choices. She has also said that this was not the final deal. With the pound set to have its biggest fall for two years and only seven MPs in two hours expressing any support for this deal at all, will she tell us what she expects to change to enable her to break that deadlock?
The Prime Minister
What will happen over the next few days, and before the special European Council takes place, is the final negotiation on matters relating to the future relationship. We will fill out the details and show a future relationship that will indeed be good for the UK economy.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
First, there is huge personal respect for the Prime Minister wherever Members stand on this matter.
May I urge my right hon. Friend to study evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee this week by customs experts, particularly their suggestions around facilitation and technical ways of achieving a soft border that does not require a backstop? Does she agree that the independent arbitration panel is bound to find that, if the EU does not negotiate the future arrangement with that in mind, it is likely to be found to have acted in bad faith?
The Prime Minister
Indeed, and that is the point of the “best endeavours” and “good faith” references in the document.
May I just say that this is the first opportunity that I have had in this Chamber to say a heartfelt thank you to my hon. Friend for the work that he did for the commemorations of the armistice and the centenary of the first world war? He can be truly proud of all the events that took place.
My hon. Friend referenced the issue of alternative arrangements for the border in Northern Ireland. One change that has been made recently in relation to the backstop issue, which we got into the protocol in the joint statement, is precisely the ability to look at alternative arrangements rather than just at the binary choice of the future relationship coming into place or the backstop coming into place. We have, of course, got the extension of the implementation period as an option, but what is also important is that, if the future framework is not in place, it is possible to have alternative arrangements for the border that satisfy the requirement and the desire that we all have to ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
At previous times of national crisis in our history, both sides of the House have come together to resolve them. The Prime Minister has made it clear that she will not support the extension of article 50. She has said that we will be leaving the European Union regardless in March next year, and she has also ruled out a people’s vote. Is it not time that she recognised reality and, after all her prodigious efforts, stood aside for someone else who can take this country forward in a united way?
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister feel that she has listened to her officials while sidelining her Brexit Secretaries, and is she now disobeying the instruction of my constituents in Gravesham?
The Prime Minister
I say to my hon. Friend that the answer to both of his questions is no. I have worked with my Brexit Secretaries and with officials and the negotiating team throughout this process, and the deal that we are proposing does deliver on the instruction of the British people.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
As a psychologist, it is clear to me today that the Prime Minister is in denial. However pragmatically agreed this deal has been, it does not command a majority in this House. If she believes in her deal and she wants to get back control, will she put it to the people?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to the answers that I have given earlier on that question.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Millions of people up and down this country and hundreds of thousands of businesses want this House to get on with it. As my right hon. Friend looks to develop the future framework, I recognise that we will remain within the EU procurement rules during the course of the implementation period. The future framework protocol refers to mutual opportunities to go beyond the WTO Government procurement agreement. Will she give some indication to the House as to whether that will include taking back control of our own procurement in this country?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we are developing a framework for our own procurement arrangements.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of the fact that a no deal would be a disaster for our nation and the high probability that the House will not pass this deal, will the Prime Minister make it her first step to extend article 50 to ensure that we do not fall off a cliff edge?
The Prime Minister
No, the Government have made it clear that we will not be extending article 50.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The draft agreement states:
“Under no circumstances may the United Kingdom: apply to its customs territory a customs tariff which is lower than the Common Customs Tariff for any good or import from any third country”.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a severe limitation on our sovereignty and will limit the opportunities that Brexit offers?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is talking about the circumstances in which the backstop and the UK-wide customs territory would come into place. As I said earlier, that is not a situation that either side wants to see happen. Even in circumstances where the future relationship is not in place at the end of December 2020, it is not necessarily the case that the backstop would come into place. If he looks at the future relationship, he will see that there is specific reference to independent trade policy for the United Kingdom. We are working to ensure that that is precisely what we are able to have for our trade deals around the rest of the world. That was one of the questions that we looked at when we put forward our proposals for the free trade area with the European Union, and we have gone forward confident that we will be able to make free trade deals around the rest of the world.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I agree with the Prime Minister that there are no enemies of the people and no traitors in this House, whatever the national newspapers may have said last year. Every single Member will make their own judgment, according to their conscience, as to what is in the best interests of the country. None the less, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) was right earlier: there is not a majority in this House for what the Prime Minister is proposing.
This is a matter of time now—time is of the essence. Whichever way we go after this, there are hundreds of statutory instruments that have to be taken and a lot of legislation that has to be in place to prevent chaos. Does it not make sense to have a vote in this House now, before the Prime Minister goes to the European Council? If she wins, she has the support of Parliament. If she loses, we have to take another tack.
The Prime Minister
We will have a vote in this House on the final deal that is negotiated with the European Union Council. As I have said, although we have the outline political declaration at the moment, we will be filling that in with further detail, which will be available to Members when they come to that vote.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Prime Minister and I know that politics is ultimately the art of the possible. That is why I support her deal and why the City corporation and all the representatives of the financial services industry have supported it, not least because it creates, in their words, the transition that is “vital” to take forward the complex issues in our future relationships in that sector. Does she agree that anyone who seeks to thwart the deal should weigh very carefully indeed the impact not just on that key economic area, but on the rest of our economy?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When people come to look at their decision in relation to this deal, it will be important for individual Members of this House to weigh very carefully a number of factors, and the impact of their decision not only on our financial services sector, but on the economy more widely will be one of them.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
My constituency voted leave. I promised that we would fight for the best possible Brexit deal for my constituents—one that will protect industry. This is not it. Given that ceramics is mentioned just once in the 585-page deal, how can we trust the Prime Minister to deliver a deal that will benefit my constituents, protect jobs and return sovereignty?
The Prime Minister
The deal that we have agreed—and in particular the future relationship that we are working on filling out the detail of—is precisely one that will be good for manufacturing industry across the United Kingdom.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Taking back control of our borders was one of the big issues that influenced my constituents’ votes at the referendum. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that leaving the EU on the terms proposed will finally allow us to fully control our borders again?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am happy to give that confirmation to my hon. Friend. Free movement will end. That is one of the key elements, I believe, of the vote in the referendum that we need to ensure we deliver for the British people.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Anyone buying an insurance policy would want to know what the excess was. If the analogy for the backstop is an insurance policy, is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that we should sign up for an insurance policy where we do not know how much the excess will cost and where we also cannot leave it without the agreement of the other party?
The Prime Minister
One of the elements of the backstop—this relates to deciding, should we be in that circumstance, whether the backstop or the extension to the implementation period would be preferable—is that there is no financial obligation.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is impossible for any of us in this House to know exactly what was in our constituents’ minds when they voted to leave or remain. It was a binary choice on the ballot paper. By that logic, it is therefore absolutely impossible for everybody to get what they want. Certain compromises are necessary in the national interest, as the Prime Minister has said. Will she therefore assure us that she will exert every effort to outline the benefits of a future trade deal that will be in the national interest and protect jobs and the economy?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to give that reassurance to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right: the nature of this negotiation is that both sides make compromises. That is what happens when two sides come together to negotiate arrangements such as this, but I am happy to assure her that we will make clear the benefits of the future trade relationship and future trade deals that we will do around the rest of the world.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The response of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation says:
“we have asked the Prime Minister for assurances that the establishment of a new fisheries agreement…does not imply that EU vessels will be guaranteed continued access to our waters in return for favourable trade terms.”
Can the Prime Minister give the federation that assurance? If she can, can she explain why it is not in the draft deal?
The Prime Minister
We have made it clear in the outline political declaration in relation to fishing opportunities that the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal state and that we will be ensuring that we take control of our waters. It will be the United Kingdom that will be negotiating access to United Kingdom waters.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Given that there is clearly unease about our inability to leave the backstop unilaterally, surely we have to discuss what credible circumstances could arise where we would wish to leave it and the EU would not wish us to. The only scenario I can see is where we had entered into trade talks with another country and were discussing, for example, lower standards. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is highly unlikely and would not be supported by the public? Although it is not impossible, the likelihood of our being in that circumstance is remote.
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is highly unlikely that we would be in that circumstance. He is right, first of all, that we will not be wanting to lower our standards in any decisions we take in relation to trade deals, but also that the backstop is an uncomfortable place for the European Union. It believes that the backstop has advantages for businesses in the United Kingdom, particularly those in Northern Ireland. These are advantages that it will not want to see continuing. The European Union has an interest in this being temporary, should we be in that position, just as we do.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Northern Ireland protocols make it clear that Northern Ireland will stay under EU single market law and will also be economically separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. Articles 7, 9 and 12 show that, even if the EU allows the UK to leave the single market, Northern Ireland will remain under single market arrangements, and any border down the Irish sea will be subject to the willingness of the EU to allow that to be avoided. How can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that Northern Ireland will not be constitutionally separated from the United Kingdom and economically separated from GB? Or is this not a case of Northern Ireland being put on a platter and abject surrender to the EU?
The Prime Minister
No, that is not the case. Throughout this discussion and these negotiations, the interests of Northern Ireland have been one of the key issues that we have put at the forefront of our mind, because of the particular geographical circumstances of Northern Ireland and its land border with Ireland. Northern Ireland will leave the single market with the whole of the United Kingdom. There will be specific regulatory alignment, which I recognise is uncomfortable. It will be in that portion of the single market acquis that relates to matters that ensure that a frictionless border can take place between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there are already some regulatory differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is a question in the future, which I know has raised a concern, as to whether there will be regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is possible for us, and we will make unilateral commitments to Northern Ireland in relation to that issue—because we are talking about a temporary period—of no regulatory divergence. The checks and controls actually relate to the degree of regulatory divergence, so if there is no regulatory divergence, obviously, that has an impact on reducing the necessity for any checks and controls. Crucially, the EU wanted to say that it would determine whether a good that was produced in Birmingham could be sold in Belfast. We were very clear that the EU could not determine that in the future. It will be the UK Government who make those determinations.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
As I stand here, I think hard about what this means for my constituents—many who voted passionately to leave, but many others who are worried about the impact of leaving on their livelihoods. I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that she is doing to reconcile those two positions in a workable Brexit. As a Kent MP, I have a particular interest in avoiding delays at the border at Dover and gridlock in Kent. Can she say more about the progress made in the future relationship plans for our trade in goods?
The Prime Minister
First, I thank my hon. Friend for her comment and recognition that, by definition, in looking at these issues, there will be compromise. Obviously, people on both sides of the argument voted in the Brexit vote. I think the overwhelming view of the British people now is that they want to see the Government getting on and delivering Brexit for the British people.
My hon. Friend asks specifically about goods. We have expressly within the outline political declaration—we will flesh this out in the fuller future framework document—put as a key element, at the forefront of our thinking, the need to ensure we have a continuing good trading relationship, with seamless transfer of goods across borders.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been very clear that my constituents voted to leave the European Union, and the only way we can do that smoothly is by leaving with a deal. However, it is clear from what has been said in the House today that the Prime Minister’s deal does not have a majority. She has ruled out withdrawing article 50 and said that she will not support a second referendum, and I do not believe that a majority exists for that in this place either. But I hope that, like me, the Prime Minister realises that no deal would be a catastrophe. Will she outline her contingency plan for this deal failing and preventing a no-deal Brexit on 29 March?
The Prime Minister
The decision on the deal will come before this House in a meaningful vote, and every Member will have the opportunity to exercise their vote according to their conscience, the need to deliver for the British people, and consideration of the impact that their decision will have on their constituents’ future.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that we would be extremely unwise to sacrifice the good on the altar of theological perfection. If she does agree with that principle, can she tell me if this is a good deal for the farmers and food producers of my constituency and for the country as a whole?
The Prime Minister
It is important that in approaching the deal and the vote, hon. Members look at it in the light of the realities of the impact and the practicalities of the deal that we will put before the House. My hon. Friend asks specifically about farmers in his constituency and elsewhere. I can reassure him that I believe that this deal delivers for them in two senses. First, we will be able to come out of the common agricultural policy and develop our own policy for agriculture that meets the needs of farmers across the United Kingdom. Secondly, although people often think of manufactured goods when talking about a frictionless border, fresh produce going across borders is equally important.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The local Schaeffler plant is closing—200 jobs. Eight hundred Virgin Media job losses. Since the 2016 referendum, more jobs have been lost than have been created. It is increasingly obvious that people in my constituency and in Wales are worse off. Should not the Government respect the future wellbeing of the people by asking for a people’s vote?
The Prime Minister
I have answered the question on the people’s vote on a number of occasions. I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I have given previously.
The employment figures we saw earlier this week show that employment in this country is now at a record high. In recent years, including since the referendum, jobs have been created in this country.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I have a huge amount of respect for my right hon. Friend and it gives me no happiness to say this, but nothing I have heard in the past two hours suggests that this is anything other than a bad deal. When will she realise that this is not the deal that people in places such as North East Derbyshire voted for, that they want, or that they will accept?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will have an understanding of the reasons behind his constituents’ vote. I think that, if we look across his constituency and others, we see that among the key things that people wanted to achieve from leaving the European Union was an end to free movement, and we will deliver an end to free movement; and an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and we will deliver that as well. We will no longer be sending vast amounts of money to the European Union every year. We will come out of policies that have been of concern in this country for a long time—the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. We will ensure that we have delivered on what I believe are the key elements of the vote that people cast. While we do that, it is right that we think of people’s jobs in North East Derbyshire and elsewhere, and that is why it is important that we seek a good future trading relationship with the European Union—one that is based on a free trade area and enables manufacturing to continue to operate as it can today.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister now accept that she inadvertently misled the nation during her now infamous Lancaster House speech, in which she appeared to offer a Utopian vision of Brexit—perhaps designed to appease both wings of her divided party—that simply cannot and never could be delivered?
The Prime Minister
All the speeches I have made and the decisions the Government have taken are compatible with the Lancaster House speech. What that speech, at its core, set out was that in the new relationship with the European Union, we had to have a new balance of rights and obligations. That is exactly what we are delivering.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
My constituents and I welcome my right hon. Friend’s repeated and consistent commitment that we will be leaving the CFP. Of course, being out of the EU means that we are out of the CFP in the same way that being in the EU—the policy of the Scottish National party and others—means being in the CFP. [Interruption.] You know it does. Will my right hon. Friend also commit that unfettered access to UK waters by EU fishing vessels outwith our ability to have control as an independent coastal state will not be part of any future trade agreement with the EU?
The Prime Minister
We are very clear that we will be an independent coastal state. There have been attempts to link fisheries and access to fishing waters to the trade aspect of the negotiation. We have been very clear that we will not accept that. We will be an independent coastal state so that it is the United Kingdom that determines access to UK waters.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Uncertainty about our future trading relationships with the EU is undermining British business and having a chilling effect on our economic growth. There is absolutely nothing in this so-called deal that dispels or resolves those issues. Will the Prime Minister recognise that, instead of negotiating with the economic kamikaze tendency in her own party, she needs to reach out to this side of the House and build a consensus, or take the issue again to the public?
The Prime Minister
The decision taken yesterday gives that certainty to business, which is why business has been welcoming the deal. Richard Walker of Iceland says:
“it delivers a clear path ahead that business so desperately needs”.
As I mentioned earlier, the FSB says it
“brings with it some certainty that our small businesses have craved.”
There are other quotes from business welcoming the fact that we have recognised the needs of manufacturing industry in putting forward our proposals for the future relationship.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for what she has said to Members on both sides of the House who have called for a politicians’ vote on a second referendum. It simply would not be appropriate at this time. However, it must be said that “no deal is better than a bad deal” are the words that govern my position today. I cannot support the deal. Does she appreciate that she has placed many of us in a simply impossible position, where our loyalty to her and to our party is set against our loyalty to our constituents?
The Prime Minister
I fully recognise that the issue we are dealing with raises some difficult decisions for individual Members of this House. The choices before Members of this House are not easy, and I absolutely recognise that. As I said, when the final deal is brought to the House, individual Members will want to look at the details, with the interests of their constituents and of this country as a whole at the forefront of their consideration. As I say, I recognise that this is not an easy decision for people to take. I believe that what we have negotiated is in the best interests of our country overall. We will fill in more detail before the matter comes before the House, and I hope hon. Members will look at the fuller detail and consider the various issues, but that is in no way to say that the choice will be an easy one, and I fully recognise that.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
I voted remain, but I represent a leave constituency. I try really hard to represent everybody in Lincoln, not just the people who shout the loudest, and I genuinely get an evenly split mailbox on this issue. I feel that this deal does not meet the aspirations and hopes of either side. It fails to protect jobs and the economy, and it creates a border down the Irish sea. If the Prime Minister will not listen to Labour Members, will she look at the faces of Members on her own side of the House, listen to their words and recognise that this is a really bad deal?
The Prime Minister
This deal does not create a border down the Irish sea. The outline political declaration on the future relationship takes the interests of people’s jobs into account by ensuring that we are negotiating a free trade area that will maintain a good trade relationship with the European Union that enables jobs to be not only maintained but created here in the UK.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Is the Prime Minister clear how committed her loyal Scottish Conservative colleagues are to fishing and the Union?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am very clear about that. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend and our Scottish Conservative colleagues are an admirable contrast to SNP Members, who are committed to neither fishing nor the Union.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
In the last few months, the Prime Minister has lost about a quarter of her Cabinet, with more resignations to follow. We have seen a dead-on-arrival deal trashed by large sections of her Back Benchers, and apparently letters are winging their way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). How many more indignities does the Prime Minister have to endure before she considers her position?
The Prime Minister
My position is that I have only one duty: to deliver for the British people in the national interest.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that Hertfordshire is fortunate enough to have major businesses in the pharma, aerospace and motor industries. Those businesses rely on just-in-time arrangements for the delivery of parts and have integrated manufacturing across Europe. Does she feel that the agreement she has put before us will be in the best interests of such businesses and all the jobs in Hertfordshire that rely on them?
The Prime Minister
I do believe that that is the case. In developing this future relationship with the European Union, one of the key issues we have been considering is the need to ensure that trade across borders and those just-in-time supply chains can continue, because many jobs in constituencies around the country depend on that. I can give my right hon. and learned Friend that assurance.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I recently visited a business in Croydon that is looking at moving to warehouses just outside Amsterdam because it thinks that this Government’s direction of travel on Brexit will not work for it. It is clear that the Prime Minister will not get a vote for this deal through the House. She has ruled out extending article 50, she has ruled out a general election, she has ruled out a people’s vote and she has ruled out no deal as well. For the sake of businesses in Croydon that are waiting right now to know what will happen, can she categorically state what she will do if she loses the vote in Parliament?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady is concerned about businesses in Croydon, she should look carefully at the future relationship that we are developing with the European Union. We will fill out further details in relation to it, but that future relationship will deliver for businesses in Croydon, will deliver on the issues that they have expressed concerns about and will deliver in a way that ensures jobs can be kept in her constituency.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this deal. There is much in it that will please my constituents, who voted strongly to come out of the EU, for reasons including taking control of our borders and ending the free movement of labour. Her task of bringing the deal to the House for a meaningful vote will be much helped if she can flesh out the future relationship—that is critical. If her friends in Europe came to her aid and made it clear that they really do want a future relationship to be secured before the backstop comes into place, she would have a real chance of carrying the House.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I can reassure him that we will be filling out the detail of the future framework in negotiations in the coming days, so that when the House comes to take the meaningful vote, it will have a better understanding of the nature of the future relationship. As I say, I believe that the future relationship will deliver for industry across the country, for agriculture, for fishing and for our security.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the Prime Minister accept that the fracturing of her party demonstrates that the 17.5 million people who voted leave in 2016 were not united in what Brexit means for them, and that therefore her claim of delivering on the majority vote of the British people is incorrect?
The Prime Minister
No. The majority vote of the British people was to leave the European Union, and that is what we will deliver.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I believe that those in Torbay who voted leave did so because they wanted to see a global trading Britain. That will be epitomised by us joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has been signed by some of our oldest allies, including the one that gifted the very Dispatch Box at which my right hon. Friend stands. Can she reassure me that the deal she is proposing will facilitate British membership of that agreement?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. When we were looking at this proposal, we specifically looked at whether it would be possible to join the CPTPP. I can assure him not only that it would be possible for us to join it, but that members of the CPTPP such as Japan and Australia are keen for us to do so.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Given that it is clear from the questions to the Prime Minister today that there is not a parliamentary majority for this deal, what is her plan? Is it just to wait for the vote to be lost and then panic? The British people deserve better than that. The Prime Minister has integrity, but she does not have the confidence of the House to get this deal through, and alternatives need to be brought before us and the British people.
The Prime Minister
We will negotiate the remaining details of this deal. There will be the EU Council on 25 November, and the deal will then be brought back to the House. Information will be made available to Members. It is at that point that Members of this House will determine whether they wish to support the deal.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Which part of the financial settlement under the proposed withdrawal agreement would be payable during the implementation period and during any backstop?
The Prime Minister
The financial settlement has a trajectory in terms of payment, some of which would be beyond the periods to which my hon. Friend refers. There is no specific financial obligation in relation to the backstop, should that backstop come into play.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
If the Prime Minister is so confident of the merits of this deal, is she not slightly concerned that when she goes to Europe, other member states will look at it enviously and want to leave the European Union on similar terms? Is not the truth that the best possible relationship with the European Union, by definition, is the one that my constituents and people across Scotland voted for—to remain in the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I am tempted to refer the hon. Gentleman to answers I gave earlier to that question. We had a vote. The overall vote was that we should leave the European Union, and that is what we will deliver.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
On all important political decisions, I not only listen to my constituents and the businesses that employ my constituents, but ask myself, “Is this in the long-term interests of my children?” I have a great deal of respect for the Prime Minister, who is a dedicated public servant, so I ask her with all sincerity, given all the viable options available: is this deal in the best interests of my children?
The Prime Minister
I say to my hon. Friend that I genuinely believe that this deal is in the national interest, and that means it is in the best interests of people up and down the United Kingdom whatever age they are, including those who are children today. What I want to do is to ensure that, as we leave the European Union, we are able to build that brighter future with a good trade relationship with the EU—our nearest neighbours—and also to develop those trade relationships around the rest of the world. That has been at the forefront of our thinking, and I believe that is in the interest of his children and others’ for their future.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
This is a very divided country, and with the rise of the far right, we should be reaching out across differences, not narrowing down and looking only at our own sides. I have sought out and listened to people who voted leave, despite the fact that I represent a very remain constituency, but the Prime Minister has not extended the same courtesy to my constituents and the rest of the 48%. I have to ask the Prime Minister: what has she got against listening to people who voted remain?
The Prime Minister
My own constituency voted remain, as it happens, and we have been listening to people across the country. We have been listening to businesses; we have been listening to individuals. I believe that the deal that we have negotiated with the European Union, with the final details yet to be completed, is one that does deliver. Actually, I think that most people in this country today want the Government to deliver Brexit, to get on with it and to ensure that we do so in a way that protects jobs and livelihoods across our country.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Both the Scottish Secretary and Ruth Davidson have said that they could not possibly support, and indeed could resign over, any deal that put the integrity of the UK at risk—a reason now being cited in various ministerial resignations. I, of course, have every confidence in their personal integrity and take them at their word. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether she has received any correspondence informing her of resignations or intentions to do so? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
I am sorry; I thought the hon. Gentleman was asking me, effectively, whether any members of the Cabinet or Ministers had resigned. I think he will see from public information that there have been some.
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
After two years of insecurity and uncertainty, the Prime Minister is proposing an outline deal that is a real backward step from the position the UK is in now. Councils up and down the country, such as mine in Warrington, are urging MPs to ask for a people’s vote so they can have a say on whether to be worse off. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is in the national interest now to go back to the people of this country? If Parliament votes down this deal, will she give the British people a voice?
The Prime Minister
We gave the British people a voice—we gave them the opportunity to choose between leaving and remaining in the European Union. They chose to leave, and that is what we will deliver.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
When we become an independent coastal state again, which I very much look forward to, our fishing waters will of course need protecting. Will the Prime Minister consider commissioning a new fleet of very fast naval vessels to chase down and capture any vessels that come into our waters to fish uninvited, thus protecting fishing and our rights to fishing in Scotland and right down the east coast to East Anglia, including in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous)?
The Prime Minister
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend’s question was intended more to be support for the fishing industry or a bid for the Ministry of Defence—[Interruption]—for the comprehensive spending review. We will be ensuring that we can operate as an independent coastal state and protect the interests of our fishing industry.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Many people think that this is a bad deal that has little support in the House and very little chance of passing. May I ask the Prime Minister to tell me what safeguards there are for UK and EU citizens in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, European Union citizens who are living here in the United Kingdom will have their rights protected.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
When is the next general election?
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
This Government’s fudged, botched Brexit deal is the worst of both worlds for both leave and remain. Does the Prime Minister not agree that as we have given the Government two years to make a complete dog’s breakfast of Brexit negotiations yet still not to be in a position to command a majority in this House, it is now high time to end this charade, to waste no further time, to have a meaningful vote, and for us to take back control in this House?
The Prime Minister
There will be a meaningful vote. There will be a meaningful vote on the final deal, as it is agreed with the European Union.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I stand here with a heavy heart and great sadness. Does the Prime Minister recollect the biblical story of Jacob and Esau, in which Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage? Does the Prime Minister see the similarity in that she is attempting to sell my children’s and grandchildren’s birthright and my constituents’ rights to be British for a despicable and shoddy deal? As Rudyard Kipling said:
“Before an Empire’s eyes
The traitor claims his price.
What need of further lies?
We are the sacrifice.”
Prime Minister, we will not be your sacrifice. We will not agree to give backstop control to the EU or to the Republic of Ireland over Northern Ireland—never.
The Prime Minister
I very much respect the hon. Gentleman, and I respect the concerns he has shown in relation to the issue of the backstop. While respecting him, I do reject the description that he has given of what is being done in relation to this deal. As I said earlier, it is clear that it is necessary to have a withdrawal agreement and, in that withdrawal agreement, to have this insurance policy. There are various ways in which that insurance policy can be exercised, and it is certainly my firm hope and my intent in everything that we work on and do to ensure that the backstop does not need to be put into practice.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister will be aware that 27 million UK citizens hold a European health insurance card. May I ask her what, after December 2020, will be the status of the European health insurance card as it applies to UK citizens, or will it be redundant from January 2021?
The Prime Minister
Perhaps I will write to the hon. Gentleman with specifics on the health card, because that issue that has been negotiated in relation to the period to December 2020. The question of any reciprocal rights in relation to healthcare is a matter that is still to be negotiated for the future relationship, but I will write to him with more detail.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has been asked this question time and again, but I will try again. She has heard across the House that there is no support for her deal. She will not call a general election, she will not support a people’s vote, she will not extend article 50, and her threat is her deal or no deal. Will she confirm that if the House does not support her deal, she will push us off the no-deal cliff edge?
The Prime Minister
As I have said in response to others, when the House comes to look at this deal, it will be for every Member to consider not only the duty to ensure that we deliver on the vote of the British people, but the long-term interests of their constituents.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has not explained what “in the national interest” actually means, so will she tell us, compared with remaining in the EU, how many extra jobs she believes will be created, how much faster our GDP will grow and how much better off each family will be?
The Prime Minister
Just to give the hon. Lady an example of one of the issues that she raises, if she looks at the report that the Office for Budget Responsibility produced at the time of the Budget, she will see that it said, well understanding that we were leaving the European Union, that over the next few years 800,000 more jobs would be created.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On the protocol on Northern Ireland, paragraph 4 of a note about the agreement contains the extraordinary statement that
“the parties should use their best endeavours to seek to facilitate trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
What assurance does that give this House about the integrity of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
We have been working and are very clear, on the issues we have developed, that there will continue to be that trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I responded a little earlier to another hon. Member in relation to the impact of any regulatory requirements that there are as a result of the UK-EU-wide customs territory. I was also clear about the changes that we have brought about—on approvals, for example, for companies to be able to sell and have business between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was one of the commitments we gave in December, and it is a commitment that continues.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I am sure the irony has not been lost on the Prime Minister that exactly 80 years ago another Conservative Prime Minister came back from Europe waving a piece of paper and claiming success—I believe the exact words were “peace for our time”, and it was Neville Chamberlain. Given that there is no peace on the Conservative Benches and that the Prime Minister does not command the support of the House, will she tell us what the options are—a general election, a people’s vote, or a hard Brexit cliff edge?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will have heard the answer that I have given to other Members of the House. When the deal is brought back from the European Council to this House, it will be up to individual Members of the House to determine whether or not they believe it is a deal that they can support in the interests of their constituents and in the national interest.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Following this debate, the odds are that the Government will be forced into a U-turn on this other FOBT—namely the fudge over Brexit terms. Given that the meaningful vote is likely to fail, would it be prudent for the Prime Minister to ask the EU for an extension to article 50, and offer the public a second vote?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to answers I gave earlier to both those questions.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Prime Minister, we all understand the importance of the Belfast agreement, but these special arrangements for one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—will have an impact on the rest of the United Kingdom, including sea ports on the western seaboard, as they will create a de facto line across the Irish sea. The Prime Minister has managed one thing today, which is to unite the DUP, my party and sections of her own party on this issue, so will she go back to Brussels—this is not a final agreement—and look at it again? Let us have fairness and unity in the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to circumstances in which if the backstop were to be operated, of course the way that the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland would operate would be different from the way the border between Great Britain and the rest of the European Union would operate. That is exactly one of the issues that will be considered should we get to the point of having to determine whether the best option was the backstop or the implementation period. If it was an extension of the implementation period, the frictionless border with the rest of the EU would continue as it does today.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister says that this is a choice between her botched option or no deal, but it is crystal clear to everyone that there is no majority support in the House for either of those options. It is also clear that the half-hearted preparation for no deal means she knows that it is not a realistic choice. When is she going to admit that she needs to allow Parliament to come up with alternatives, and that she had better do that sooner rather than later?
The Prime Minister
We are making clear preparations for no deal. We have continued to make those preparations and we stepped them up this summer. Parliament will have an opportunity to vote on the deal in a meaningful vote.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
At the outset of this statement, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) quite rightly stressed the importance of the free movement of goods. Services are also a vital part of our economy, and something at which we are very good. Will the Prime Minister explain what benefits her approach gives to the services sector that it does not already enjoy? Importantly, what influence will it have after transition on the future development of the single market, including the digital single market?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will know, once we leave the European Union we will not participate in decisions that it takes in relation to its market. Services are so important to the UK economy that it is important that the flexibility set out in the outline political declaration is available to financial services and others. This is a key area for the United Kingdom, and I expect we will be able to develop good partnerships and relationships not just with the European Union, but with other parts of the world as well, in the interests of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others across the country.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Prime Minister finally admitted last night that there are not two but three possible outcomes given where we currently stand, yet she insists that Parliament will be allowed only a binary choice between two of them, and will be denied the right to vote on the only one of those options that has any chance of commanding majority support. We will be denied the right to vote on the option that the majority of MPs now believe to be in the best interests of their constituents. By what stretch of the imagination does that constitute a meaningful vote, and in what parallel universe can it be described as returning control to Parliament?
The Prime Minister
The meaningful vote will be an amendable motion, but as I have said, if we asked most members of the public, “If the Government bring a deal back from Brussels, what do you expect Parliament to vote on?”, I think they would expect Parliament to vote on that deal.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has to accept responsibility for the position she has put herself in. She thought it was a good idea to make the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) her Foreign Secretary, and she appointed two arch-Brexiters as Brexit Secretary. Those people were always going to lay her low and desert her, and she is now left with no majority for her position in the House. Surely she has to hold a vote in this House to give an indicative position of the House of Commons on this deal before she goes to a summit at the end of this month, so that she can honestly represent the views of the House on the deal she has negotiated.
The Prime Minister
The House will be able to vote on the final deal that is negotiated with the European Council. That is the commitment we have made to the House, and that is what will happen.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The people of Scotland voted by a wide margin to remain in the EU, and ever since that point their democratic wishes have been disrespected, as have those of the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, who put forward compromise positions on Brexit to the UK Government. Will the Prime Minister confirm that yesterday the disrespect to the people of Scotland was extended threefold, first by providing a differential deal to Northern Ireland; secondly by providing briefings to the Government of Gibraltar before the Scottish Government; and thirdly—as was pointed out on Radio Scotland this morning by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)—because Conservative Members from Scotland were briefed on the text of the withdrawal agreement before the Scottish Government? Is that the case?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about respecting the position that has been taken. Throughout this process we have respected the fact that we are negotiating on behalf of, and in the interests of, the whole United Kingdom. We have continued to do that, and we will continue to do that, and Scotland of course is part of the United Kingdom.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence earlier today. I wish to ask the Prime Minister, why is no Brexit a “risk” to the United Kingdom and my constituency?
The Prime Minister
The people of this country voted to leave the European Union, and I believe that it is in their interests, and the duty of this Parliament, to deliver that. I said that there was a risk of no Brexit at all, and a number of Opposition Members have said that they would prefer to keep us in the European Union. I disagree—the British people voted to leave, and we will leave.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
My primary concern throughout this process has been jobs in my community, and nobody knows more about negotiating for jobs than our nation’s trade unions that represent millions of working people. Since this deal has been struck, has the Prime Minister spoken to our unions or their representatives, and if not, what day will she do so?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of trade unions and businesses have been taken into account in the work that has been done, and there has been interaction between trade unions and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a very specific question and I would like a specific answer. The statement of intent for the EU settlement scheme said that those applying will not be required to show that they meet all the requirements of current free movement rules, but that has been contradicted by the latest set of immigration regulations. From my reading, this agreement is ambiguous on that point. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether, as she promised, it will be possible for people to get settled status if they can prove they have been resident and pass a criminality check, but might not be able, through no fault of their own, to prove that they have been exercising their European economic area treaty rights?
The Prime Minister
I think I heard the hon. Lady say that the regulations were ambiguous, and claimed that that ambiguity necessarily contradicted what had been said previously. In the interests of making sure that she gets as accurate a reply as possible, I will write to her on this matter.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
There are a number of simple truths among the political noise: first, Brexit is bad for Britain; secondly, the Prime Minister’s proposal has no majority in the House; and thirdly, on the future relationship, the thing that all my constituents wish to know about, regardless of their view on Brexit, is a seven-page wish list and nothing else. The Prime Minister said today that she will bring further details to the House, but can she confirm how long we will have, as a House, as Select Committees and as constituency MPs in conversation with our constituents, to fully understand the consequences of her future proposal between the UK and the EU?
The Prime Minister
We will ensure that Parliament, before it takes the meaningful vote, is able to see both the future framework as it is developed in greater detail than it is at the moment in the outline political declaration, together with, as I have indicated, the various forms of analysis that the Government have committed to.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that the Prime Minister’s own Scottish Tory MPs no longer have confidence in her Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been trampled over on fisheries and the Irish backstop, and who could not even turn up today, how can she seriously suggest that this deal offers anything other than an undermining of the integrity of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman’s portrayal of the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland is completely wrong. The Secretary of State for Scotland is doing an excellent job, together with my Scottish Conservative colleagues on the Government Benches, in defending the interests of Scotland, and is doing so in a rather better way than the SNP.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Just to come back on the comment by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), to be very clear the Secretary of State for Scotland has not had a red line crossed. I hope my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will affirm again that we will negotiate fishing as an independent coastal state in 2020. Furthermore, Scotland has been respected and is being respected by consulting Scottish MPs in this House, as is appropriate.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I confirm the commitments I gave earlier about the position of the United Kingdom as an independent coastal state.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Given the absence of the lesser-spotted Secretary of State for Scotland in the past 48 hours, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain to those living in my already economically fragile constituency exactly why her deal puts them at a competitive disadvantage to their very close neighbours in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
Scottish National party Members have on a number of occasions referred to the issue of Northern Ireland in relation to Scotland in this deal. Northern Ireland has a particular set of circumstances that do not—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, “Oh, and we do not?” No, you do not—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is really the height of discourtesy. The Prime Minister is answering the question and she must be heard. The question has been asked, the Prime Minister is answering it and the hon. Gentleman is jabbering away from a sedentary position to no obvious benefit or purpose.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was suggesting that Scotland was in the same position as Northern Ireland. Of course it is not; it does not have a land border with a country that is going to be within the European Union.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This deal is far worse for our young people than the deal they currently have with our membership of the EU. This deal has no guarantees on Erasmus, funding for EU students, their travel and work rights in Europe and EU research funding worth €100 billion. When the future of millions of young people is at stake, does the Prime Minister not agree that it is time to let them vote for their future with a people’s vote, particularly for those young people who did not get a vote last time because they were not old enough?
The Prime Minister
There are references in what we have agreed in relation to some of the matters the hon. Lady raises, but the deal is about the future of this country. [Interruption.] She is holding up the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement is about our withdrawal from the European Union. It is not about our future relationship. The matters she referred to are about our future relationship.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister look my constituents in the eye and guarantee that this withdrawal agreement will put them in a better position than the one they currently enjoy as a member of the European Union, and promise them that not one will be a penny worse off as a result of the agreement?
The Prime Minister
What is going to ensure the future of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of Members across the House is not the withdrawal agreement but the future relationship we deliver with the European Union. That is precisely why we have made the element of the economic partnership as such an important part of that future relationship.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has yet to answer a simple but very important question: if her deal is rejected, what will her Government do next?
The Prime Minister
As I said quite a lot earlier in answer to a question, the process were that to happen is set out quite clearly for this House. The question is: how will individual Members of this House approach this decision when they come to make it in the interests of the country and in the interests of their constituents? They will need to have at the forefront of their minds the duty to deliver on the vote of the British people to leave the European Union, and the overall national interest of our country and the interests of their constituents.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The world is looking on with horror and sympathy. My constituents, people up and down Wales and across the UK worry about how to make ends meet. They know now that Brexit is bad for Britain. Can the Prime Minister tell my constituents exactly how this deal will make them better off than they are now?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady says she is concerned. I have set out before why I think this deal, the future partnership we can have with the European Union and trade deals around the rest of the world can benefit our economy, benefit jobs and benefit the hon. Lady’s constituents. She says her constituents worry about how to make ends meet. That is precisely why this Government continue to increase the national living wage and put through tax cuts for millions of people.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Could the Prime Minister enlighten the House as to why the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) may be meeting the Government Chief Whip at this moment?
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Prime Minister for staying to answer everyone’s questions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
The Prime Minister says we risk no Brexit at all. Our NHS relies on EU workers and depends on EU research and medicines collaboration. How is this deal better for the NHS than no Brexit?
The Prime Minister
First of all, the British people voted to leave the European Union and we have a duty to deliver on that. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the future of the NHS, then I hope he supports the significant decision this Government have taken to make the biggest injection of funding into our NHS in its history with our multi-year funding programme, over £80 billion more going into the NHS and the 10-year plan that ensures the sustainability of our NHS into the future.
Mr Speaker
I will take the hon. Gentleman’s point of order if it is material to what we have been discussing, but I do then wish to proceed to the business statement.
Neil Gray
I thank you for your flexibility, Mr Speaker.
It was suggested this morning on Radio Scotland by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and later apparently confirmed by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), that the Conservative Members of this House from Scotland were given advance sight of the withdrawal agreement before other party leaders in this House and before the democratically elected devolved Administrations. I know my constituents would see that as disorderly and disrespectful, but I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you could confirm, in terms of the rules of this House, whether that was disorderly and disrespectful?
Mr Speaker
That is certainly nothing to do with the rules of the House. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman if he thinks it is, but it is not. There are judgments to be made in this matter and opinions will differ as to the wisdom of particular courses of action, but there has been no breach of order. I absolutely recognise his irritation or dissatisfaction, but that is distinct from any question of procedural impropriety.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to the point of order that was just made—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is not a debate. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking a ruling from the Chair, he can raise a point of order. If he just wants to have a tit for tat with another hon. Member, it is not the proper use of a point of order—[Interruption.] He wanted a tit for tat—[Interruption.] No, he wants a ruling. Very good.
Luke Graham
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am looking for your ruling, advice and clarification on how to make sure that the record is read correctly in relation to a point that was made in the House earlier today regarding what Scottish Conservatives said about looking at Government texts before they had been released to other MPs. During the previous statement, I mentioned my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister engaging with Scottish MPs, but as I am sure Hansard will reflect, it was in relation to the statement this morning and not a preview of any other text. How can I clarify this, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
Clarification—I advise the hon. Gentleman in terms that brook no contradiction or misunderstanding —is contained within the terms of his own inquiry. As he just emphasised, statements were made earlier during the course of exchanges. Because those statements were made, they will be recorded in the Official Report. Therefore, all people need to do is study the Official Report, including to establish what was and what was not said by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that that is helpful to him and that he will now go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and a spring in his step for the rest of the day. Very good.
Business of the House
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
I would like to announce that the business for next week will be:
Monday 19 November—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 3) Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 20 November—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 3) Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 21 November—Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill.
Thursday 22 November—General debate on the armed forces covenant.
Friday 23 November—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 26 November will include:
Monday 26 November—Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords].
The House is rightly focused on the important decisions that lie ahead of us with regard to leaving the EU, but we also continue to fulfil the many other vital aspects of our parliamentary roles, so I was delighted, along with you, Mr Speaker, to welcome the Youth Parliament to the Chamber last week and to hear of the significant issues that its members wanted to debate, such as mental health and serious violence.
Also last week, we had the first ever Women MPs of the World Conference in this Chamber, demonstrating our commitment to global outreach and promoting our democratic values. This week is Parliament Week—a chance for hundreds of schools and civic organisations to take part in and promote democratic engagement.
Finally, along with the Prime Minister, you, Mr Speaker, and others, the Leader of the Lords and I look forward to presenting a Humble Address to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales later today on the event of his 70th birthday.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. I, too, congratulate the Youth Parliament; it was absolutely wonderful to hear its members debate the issues rather than people.
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business—again, it is a week and a day, and we do not seem to be any nearer getting the dates for the Easter recess. The staff of the House need to make plans. I know that there have been many more things to discuss and that it has been difficult to get those dates, but could she possibly look at doing so for next week?
I ask the Leader of the House to remind her colleagues about the ministerial code. The Government have again breached paragraph 9.1:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
It took numerous points of order and a letter from the leaders of all the Opposition parties for the Government to finally realise that they had to abide by the code and make a statement to Parliament—we are very grateful that that was done today and to the Prime Minister for staying and taking all the questions. I hope that the Leader of the House will continue to remind the Government of their duties.
It was a marathon session of the Cabinet yesterday. I wonder whether they all started with, “I hadn’t quite understood the importance of” the Dover-Calais border/the economy/jobs/security/the effect on science—delete where applicable for each of the Secretaries of State when they read the draft agreement. We have had the statement, but could the Leader of the House outline the timetable for the next stage? The Prime Minister alluded to the fact that the House will get a debate; will it be before or after Christmas? When are we likely to be able to scrutinise this very important agreement, given that the EU will be meeting on 25 November?
On Tuesday, the House resolved that the legal advice from the Law Officers would be made available. Will the Leader of the House say when it will be published? Why did it take the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), to publish a letter from the Environment Secretary saying that he was raiding 400 staff from other agencies to work on Brexit? When will we get a statement and the impact assessment on the effect of enforcing the regulations that deal with recycling, air pollution and flooding?
Turning to more contempt of Parliament and the vulnerable, private companies are making large sums of money by locking up our young. There are 2,375 people with autism and learning disabilities held in assessment and treatment units. Seven providers are charging taxpayers up to £730,000 a year for each patient. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that he has
“instigated a Care Quality Commission review into the inappropriate use of prolonged seclusion and segregation.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2018; Vol. 648, c. 1264.]
However, that was in a wider statement on prevention of ill health, and no notice was given to the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) made a point of order to ask the Secretary of State to come to the House to make a statement on that review. As she said, this is scandalous. Could we have a statement on this important review, including the timeframe for reporting back? No child should be deprived of their liberty in this way. They need support, not imprisonment.
More disarray: I was going to say that the Government have lost one Minister—the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—but actually it is half the Cabinet. A week later, the Government have done what she asked; a written statement was slipped out yesterday. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and others have campaigned for this change, and the Minister will have had to give weight to relevant or irrelevant considerations, so this is not about losing money to the Exchequer, but about saving lives.
Yet another fall-out from the referendum is the number of statutory instruments—800 to 1,000. I am pleased to say that Parliament staff have worked on an SI tracker, which is now available, so I thank them for doing that. We can filter it by European Union SIs, but not by when they are going to be laid, so we have absolutely no idea of when the SIs will come to be scrutinised. We need to know that to give them effective scrutiny. Perhaps some sort of category such as “SIs on hold” or “Waiting to be laid” might be quite useful for Members.
It has been announced that a memorial to PC Keith Palmer near Carriage Gates has been agreed with his family. The Police Memorial Trust said that the memorial would be a reminder of PC Palmer’s sacrifice and heroism. We need our police officers in the House; they provide valuable back-up to other House staff, such as the Doorkeepers and those around the Estate. We need them, and we thank them for their work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) had a debate yesterday on police pensions. In the west midlands, the changes will cost about £22 million—that is what the west midlands force will have to deal with. That is putting a huge amount of pressure on police forces. The Home Secretary and the Chancellor should come up with a solution now, as the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service alluded to yesterday. Could we have statement to the House on that? It would be a fitting recognition of our police service.
Mr Speaker, yesterday you read out a great letter from our Clerk. I know that there is time until his retirement for tributes to him, but we appreciate the sentiments that he expressed in his resignation letter and thank him for his guidance and expertise in his 43 years of service. He will be missed.
Finally, I want to add my own good wishes to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on his 70th birthday, as I did not have a chance to do so yesterday. I do not know whether Members are aware of one of the facts about him, which is that every time he plants a tree, he gives it a little shake for good luck. I wonder whether the Prime Minister did the same to her Cabinet yesterday. I shall certainly remember to do it when planting trees for the Queen’s Commonwealth canopy.
His Royal Highness is a great innovator. He highlighted organic farming many years ago, before it was fashionable, and as his mum—our Gracious Sovereign— said, he is a true Duchy Original. I wish him a belated penblwydd hapus.
Andrea Leadsom
Let me first join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the Clerk of the House. I have already made my views clear—he has done a great service to the House, and we wish him a long and happy retirement. I also pay tribute to PC Keith Palmer, who sacrificed his own life for us in this place. It is very fitting that there will be a memorial to him here.
As for the hon. Lady’s other requests, as ever, there were many. I am not quite sure that I can offer a statement on how to shake Cabinet members into submission, but it is an interesting suggestion.
The hon. Lady asked about the Easter recess dates. I can only say again that we have announced the Christmas and February recesses, and we will announce the Easter recess in due course. I remind the hon. Lady that in 2010 the Easter recess was announced on 18 March, about 12 days before it started. I think we have a way to go before we can match the appalling—[Interruption.] Yes, we can do better. I totally agree. I fully intend to do better than that.
The hon. Lady said that we had breached the ministerial code. I entirely rebut that, and it is quite outrageous that she should suggest such a thing. The Prime Minister made herself available to the House at the first opportunity to make a statement, and she answered questions for three hours, many of them totally repetitive. The House gives her absolutely no quarter, but it does owe her some respect for that marathon statement, and it does not owe her the discourtesy of suggesting that it broke the ministerial code. I should like to see some evidence of that if the hon. Lady wants to press the point, because she is entirely wrong.
The hon. Lady asked about the timetable for the next stage of the process. As the Prime Minister said, the European Council meeting will be on 25 November. After that point the deal will be finalised, and it will then be brought back to the House for a lengthy review, for discussion, for debate, and for a meaningful vote.
The hon. Lady referred to what she said was another aspect of contempt of Parliament, but did not quite explain what she meant by that. As far as I am aware, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has made absolutely clear his concern about young people being locked up owing to mental health problems. As the hon. Lady said, he did discuss the issue in his statement on prevention, but if she wants to raise it with him again, I suggest that she table a parliamentary question or raise it during Health and Social Care questions on 4 December.
I am not entirely sure what to make of the hon. Lady’s point about Cabinet losses; I think that she, and indeed all Members, should celebrate the fact that the Government are addressing the scourge of gambling addiction, rather than trying to score political points.
The hon. Lady asked about statutory instruments. She will know that the Government have really sought to get a handle on SIs to ensure that the flow is even and the House has time to consider them properly. I have already made it clear—but she may wish to consult the House of Lords Select Committee that is looking into the matter—that the number of SIs will be at the lower end of 800 to 1,000, possibly even lower than that, but we are bringing them forward at a good rate. We are providing further information on the bandings and the likely range of numbers of SIs each month, to be helpful to the sifting Committees in both Houses, and we will continue to co-operate as much as we can to ensure that we get a good Brexit.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Yesterday in this place we congratulated His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on his birthday—the greatest living Briton, Mr Speaker; you and I are on the list, but not at the apex.
One of the prince’s many achievements is to be patron of the Heritage Crafts Association. That association covers everyone and everything from wheelwrights to woodturners, from lorinery to lamp making, from passementery to pargeting. A study that I initiated as a Minister in 2012 revealed that it is, collectively, worth £4.4 billion to our economy, employing 200,000 people. Should we not have a debate in the House on those heritage crafts? They, in the union of beauty and utility, add lustre to lives and wealth to our nation.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising a lovely subject. I am not quite sure what my response should be, except to say that I should certainly welcome such a debate, and also to pay tribute to the wonderful contribution that heritage craftspeople make to the beauty of our environment.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the—still in place—Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. She has only gone and upset my Brexit resignation bingo coupon, Mr Speaker. I had her down as a definite resigner today. However, I know that there will be further opportunities later in the day. She will probably have something to say about her place in all this. Once she has recovered from the hangover from all the unchilled Chardonnay that was consumed last night, we may get a sense of what actually happened at that Cabinet meeting.
What we want to hear from the Leader of the House now, however, is what is going to happen next. We need to be reassured that this nonsensical binary choice between a bad deal and no deal is taken right off the table. We have just listened to the Prime Minister’s statement. More than half the Tory Back Benchers were trashing and traducing her deal. It will not get through the House. We are facing the option of a no-deal Brexit. We need to design a process whereby the House could consider a proper response, with all the options properly presented, so that we could make an informed choice. The Leader of the House must say today that it is not about a bad deal or no deal, the devil or the deep blue sea.
May we have a debate about huffing and puffing? The Scottish people are looking at my Scottish Conservative colleagues with a mixture of bemusement and bewilderment. First, they threaten to resign, then they do not resign, then they write letters with red lines, then they do nothing, then they write more letters—only to be ignored, which then seems to satisfy them. They are about the most useless rebels in the history of parliamentary rebellions. Everyone in Scotland is watching the wonderful “Outlaw King” on Netflix, the story of the great king Robert the Bruce. We can only imagine what the Bruce would do if he had to rely on these “rebels”—they would still be sending letters to Edward I as the heavy horse came charging over their heads.
Lastly, given the scale of the resignations that we have seen today—I think that a quarter of the Cabinet have resigned in the past few months—perhaps the Leader of the House would consider providing a spot in the parliamentary weekly calendar that would allow “resignees”, if we can call them that, to come forward in the comfort of this place, rather than having to stand outside on that draughty green to give their views to the press. I think that that is worth considering.
Andrea Leadsom
I am normally happy to entertain the hon. Gentleman’s banter, but all that he has done today is demonstrate that he is not very good at bingo. He is also not very good at disrespecting the Scottish Conservatives, who at least understand how to fulfil the will of the people.
The hon. Gentleman talked of my having to resign: he had me down as a “resignee”. What I can say to him is that I am staying in the Government because there is more work to be done to secure the Brexit that the Prime Minister wants to deliver to the people and I am determined to support her. The hon. Gentleman’s bantering about that and mocking is all very well, but he does not suggest anything else, and his party has form for ignoring the will of the people in Scotland, who voted in a referendum to stay in the United Kingdom. What are SNP Members doing sitting there? All they want to do is break up the United Kingdom and, against the will of Scottish fishers, keep them in the common fisheries policy. How much sense does that make?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee is away on other parliamentary business. He has asked me to plead with the Leader of the House to give us some time to allocate in the Chamber. There is a queue for debates, some of them time-sensitive, that would extend to the end of January if we were given every Thursday. So may I ask for some extra time?
This is my question. Last week, we celebrated the Hindu new year and for most of us it was a joyous occasion. The following day, very sadly, the Willesden temple was broken into and the idols, or statues, that all Hindus celebrate were stolen. Subsequently, earlier this week, the Kenton temple was also broken into and the same thing happened. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the subject, so that greater security could be provided for Hindu temples across the country to prevent this from happening anywhere else?
Andrea Leadsom
I am really sorry to hear about the break-ins at Willesden and Kenton temples. That is appalling. I encourage my hon. Friend to take the opportunity to speak to the Home Secretary about that himself. I am sure he will do that. I am very aware that we need to provide Back-Bench time. I am working on it and would be happy to meet him and the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee to discuss their priorities.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Last Friday, we witnessed some of the best contributions I have ever heard in this Chamber. After a day of passionate speeches, the UK Youth Parliament chose knife crime as one of its two campaign priorities this year. Several MYPs called on the Government to treat knife crime as a public health crisis. I join their calls and ask, for the seventh time: when will the Government grant this House a debate on the public health approach?
Andrea Leadsom
As I said in my introductory remarks, I was also delighted to hear the extent of the impassioned debate in the Youth Parliament and MYPs are right to raise that very serious issue, as is the hon. Lady. I am aware that she raised it directly with Home Office Ministers earlier this week and I have written to them on her behalf. So she has very well raised this issue, as she should, and I hope to come back to her on it soon.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the use of meanwhile spaces? Under present arrangements, charity shops, artists and entrepreneurs often take these spaces for three months and then face the full business charge, which seems very unfair under the circumstances.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. He will be aware that the Government introduced a range of business rate reforms worth over £13 billion in England over the next five years, and that we want to encourage the use of empty town centre properties by some of those occupiers who can contribute to the vitality of town centres. We launched our “open doors” project this month, which matches community groups looking for spaces with empty commercial properties and I encourage him to speak directly to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers to see what more can be done to protect them from unnecessary costs.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
After two years, the Prime Minister has said the Government will act to stop rogue bosses swiping tips intended for staff. In answer to my written parliamentary question, the Government, however, have said that this requires primary legislation. When will the Leader of the House make time available for this important Bill?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point. She is absolutely right; this does require primary legislation. We will be looking carefully at how we can bring that forward as soon as possible. In the meantime we have Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions on Tuesday 20 November and she might want to raise the issue there.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am glad my right hon. Friend told us about the women MPs of the world and the Youth Parliament, which has also been referred to. I was able to listen to a bit of the women MPs of the world debate and I was very pleased to see them contributing in this Chamber.
Early-day motion 1826 is on the Shaw report on deportation.
[That this House joins the Home Secretary in endorsing the recommendations of the Shaw Report on possible deportations of foreign nationals, especially when they last lived in their family’s country of residence when young.]
It is associated with two previous EDMs, Nos. 1591 and 1630, about Kweku Adoboli, together with the written questions that were tabled yesterday— questions 157 to 162, on page 19. Is it possible to have a debate on the Shaw report? Can Ministers, instead of saying “We don’t discuss individual cases,” actually say why someone has been deported to a country he last lived in when he was four, and what risk assessment was made of his being allowed to stay here?
May I briefly also mention early-day motion 1440 on fixed odds betting terminals from the summer?
[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to cut the stake on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals to £2; acknowledges that a £2 stake is now supported by parties across this House; notes that a reduced stake will greatly improve the lives of problem and at-risk gamblers, as well as their families and wider communities; further notes with concern that each day £5 million is lost on such machines; notes with equal concern that the stake is not due to be reduced until April 2020; and calls on the Government to implement this new reduced stake of £2 immediately, to prevent any further gambling related harm or possible loss of life.]
It has been well met by responses in the Commons and by the Government, and I thank the Government for that. We look forward to seeing it in the Finance (No. 3) Bill and to seeing progress to reduce the appalling losses, particularly for people who cannot afford the money they are betting.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a number of important points. On deportations, I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so he can raise his EDM issues directly with Ministers. On FOBTs, he raises a very good point that many hon. and right hon. Members will have a lot of sympathy with.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
In my constituency, tributes are gradually being withdrawn from the site where two young brothers were killed earlier this year by a speeding motorist who was high on drugs and received a paltry sentence for the crime. Last October, the Government announced they planned to increase the maximum penalty for death by dangerous driving. A year on, we are still waiting. May we therefore have a debate or statement on when the Government will introduce the Bill to increase the sentences given to those found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a very serious issue and it is completely horrendous when anyone is killed as a result of dangerous driving. She will be aware that we had a debate, as a result of many representations from hon. Members, just before recess. I hope that she was able to make her points there, but certainly Ministers are looking very carefully at what more can be done.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Procedure Committee, on which I sit, is going to report imminently on the meaningful vote. It would obviously be wrong for me to provide a trailer for that, but I can give my personal views, and I wonder what the Leader of the House thinks about this. If we are going to have a meaningful vote, should we not know what we are voting on? Is it not the right thing to do, in accordance with the normal procedure of the House, to have the amendments first? Some of us are Brexiteers and some are remainers, but we all believe in the supremacy and importance of Parliament. This motion is amendable and it makes no sense at all to vote on the main motion having no idea what subsequent amendments might be passed. So can the Leader of the House consider at least that as a representation—we should take the amendments first?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend will be aware that there will be, as the Prime Minister said earlier, plenty of time for discussion and consideration of exactly what the deal looks like and of the advice given around it, and indeed for consideration of amendments that hon. Members want to bring forward. Clearly, once the deal with the EU has been agreed, Parliament will have a vote on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future partnership. Parliament will have the choice to accept or reject the deal. Of course if Parliament accepts the deal, we will introduce the EU withdrawal agreement Bill, which will implement it in domestic legislation, and if Parliament chooses to reject the deal, the Government will be unable to ratify the agreement. But to be clear, of course the motion will be amendable.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On Saturday, my daughter Jessica, will be two months old and Saturday is also World Prematurity Day. My daughter was born very premature. At the moment, under UK law, fathers have to take their paternity leave within 56 days, but that is very difficult to do when their child is in a neonatal intensive care unit. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate so we can look at this issue and change the law for good?
Andrea Leadsom
First, may I say that Jessica is gorgeous? We all saw the tweets that the hon. Gentleman put out and congratulate him again; we are so pleased she is making good progress—that is great to hear. He raises an important point and I encourage him to raise it directly with Health Ministers on 27 November. I am sure they will be keen to support him.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May we have an urgent debate on the way in which private landlords treat some charities? Families United Network is the most amazing charity, serving a lot of my constituents, and it is facing having its rent doubled, which will probably put it out of its premises. This charity provides respite care that is desperately needed by families with disabled children. I visited the charity and it does amazing work. It concerns me that a company such as Petchey Holdings can just threaten to double the rent, effectively meaning the charity has to close down.
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear about that and hope that my hon. Friend raising it in the Chamber will cause the landlord to think again. He is right to raise the problem of landlords unreasonably raising rents and the Government are looking at what more can be done to prevent that from happening.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Last Friday, we marked the two-year anniversary of the worst rail disaster for decades: the Croydon tram crash, which took the lives of seven people and injured many more. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch report was published last year, and its first recommendation was to set up a UK tram safety board to ensure that nothing like this could happen again. The Government have withheld funding for the board, so it has not yet been set up, and that withholding of funds leaves all those across the country who travel on trams potentially less safe than they should be. Last year, when the investigation report was published, I asked for a debate and for a Minister to come to this place, but no Minister has been to the House to talk about this at all. May I ask that a Minister comes to this place to make a statement about the Croydon tram crash and how we can ensure that nothing like it happens again?
Andrea Leadsom
We all recall that appalling day and that terrible crash. It was horrendous, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the matter here. We will have Transport questions next Thursday 22 November, and I encourage her to ask her question then.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Yesterday it was announced that the House of Fraser store in the Metro Centre was to close, apparently following a breakdown in rental negotiations. Will the Leader of the House join me in offering the staff commiserations on the loss of their jobs? Will she also arrange a debate in Government time to discuss the retail sector and the impact that these rent discussions are having on shops?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. We know that the retail sector is under great strain at the moment, not least because people are changing the way in which they shop and doing much more shopping online. I certainly agree that we should all send our best wishes to those who are losing their jobs, and of course Jobcentre Plus will stand ready to support them in finding other work. The House has had a number of debates on what more can be done in the retail sector, and I encourage the hon. Lady to take part in next week’s Finance Bill Committee debates so that she can raise this issue again.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Leader of the House will be aware that there are 115 pieces of proposed legislation to be debated on 23 November, including the beautifully written Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill—
Chris Stephens
Funnily enough, it was the Member for Glasgow South West. Can the Leader of the House indicate whether more time will be allocated for the House to debate private Members’ Bills in the future?
Andrea Leadsom
I tabled a motion on Monday to provide the House with an additional three sitting Fridays, but unfortunately it was objected to. All hon. Members will know that the Government are keen to support some of the excellent private Members’ Bills, and that is why that time has been provided. I will put forward the motion again shortly, as I am keen for the House to have those extra days.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The only Crown post office in the centre of Cardiff, Wales’s capital city, is to be franchised to WH Smith, a failing retailer, together with 73 other post offices across the country. May we please have a debate on stopping this unnecessary and damaging privatisation, which is going to affect the jobs of 800 people?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this point again—it has been raised a number of times at business questions. As I have explained to other hon. Members, the Post Office is moving some of its centres into WH Smith. That is designed not to reduce the services in any way, but to rationalise them. Indeed, in taking on banking and other services, the post office network around the country is often enabling people to get a better service than previously.
Chris Bryant
I am delighted that the Leader of the House is staying in her job because I will admit—as long as she does not tell anybody else—that I quite like her. [Interruption.] Blowing kisses is not going to get her anywhere, however.
Chris Bryant
Easy!
As the Leader of the House will know, the House passed a Magnitsky-style measure in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The Government have provided three excuses for not doing anything about this yet. One is that it cannot be done until the end of Brexit, and the Foreign Secretary says that that means after the transition period is over. Another reason is that we would have to table statutory instruments and that there is no time for SIs. However, everyone in this House would love to get this done as quickly as possible. Other countries in Europe have already done it, so will she please stay in her job just to get this thing done?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I also enjoy our little altercations across the Floor of the House on so many different subjects. I hear what he is saying, and I would be happy to raise this with Ministers directly on his behalf.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
May we have a debate on who should be on the front of the new £50 note, and will the Leader of the House back the campaign supported by the Stoke-on-Trent Sentinel to have the brilliant engineer who designed the Spitfire, Reginald Mitchell, as the winner?
Andrea Leadsom
That is a very leading question from the hon. Lady. I absolutely applaud her for suggesting that we should have some sort of debate on this. I could probably come up with my own proposals as well. She makes a good suggestion, and I encourage her to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that all hon. Members can have their say.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Yesterday, I met a delegation from Burma consisting of Christians and Buddhists. In September 2018, a United Nations fact-finding mission published a report cataloguing the human rights violations committed by the Burmese military. The report accuses military generals of genocide against the Rohingya, and also outlines crimes such as murder and arbitrary imprisonment. In the past few months, for example, 90 pastors were detained in the Kachin province alone, and 50 churches were attacked and destroyed. Other crimes outlined in the report include enforced disappearance, torture, rape and the enslavement of other religious and ethnic minorities in the Christian Kachin and Buddhist Shan states. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this important matter?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important issue that is quite harrowing for all Members across the House. I am aware that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have visited Burma to see for themselves what has been going on there. It is certainly ethnic cleansing, and there seems to be an overwhelming level of evidence for some of the atrocities that he has highlighted. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Burma in September to press its leaders to take action, and also convened a meeting in New York later in September to try to galvanise the international response. From a humanitarian and a diplomatic point of view, the UK Government are trying their hardest to get these issues resolved.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Each Lent, Nottingham women seeking a termination of pregnancy must run an unacceptable gauntlet of protesters outside the Nottingham treatment centre. We need a buffer zone, but this has been ruled out by the Home Secretary. May we have a debate in Government time on the harm that this will cause?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says. He will be aware that there is a balance of issues on all sides of this debate, and it has been concluded that it is reasonable to have quiet and peaceful objections shown. I think that many hon. Members will have differing views on this, and I encourage him to perhaps seek an Adjournment debate on the subject.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
May we have an urgent statement—as soon as someone is appointed as Secretary of State—on the mistreatment of young people with epilepsy by the Department for Work and Pensions? My constituent suffered an intermittent epileptic seizure, which is an unpredictable part of his condition, and could not attend his assessment, but he has now had his personal independence payment stopped. This is surely a callous system that needs to be turned around. Could the situation be looked at, particularly in relation to young people with epilepsy, who are being disadvantaged?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises what sounds like a terrible constituency issue—she is absolutely right to do so. She will be aware that we have Work and Pensions questions on Monday 19 November, and I encourage her to raise this matter with Ministers then.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The outgoing Clerk of the House is a great champion of the London living wage, which is paid here in Parliament. May we have a debate in Government time on the excellent scheme here in Parliament, given that some of our publicity is not so excellent? That might also encourage other employers to pay the London living wage, when they can, to entry-level employees.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. She is right to suggest that we are not all bad, and that the paying of the London living wage is a significant positive for this place. There are many more areas in which Parliament leads the way or aspires to do so, and I share her enthusiasm for having a debate on that subject. She might like to raise the matter directly with Ministers at Question Time, or perhaps seek a Westminster Hall debate so that other colleagues can share their views on the importance of paying the London living wage.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
My constituent’s husband died 11 days before she became eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 20 July to ask for a meeting with him about that case, but I have still not had that meeting. I wrote to him about another constituent, Mr Moneke, on 5 June, 20 July and again on 9 November to ask for a meeting to discuss that case. Could the Leader of the House please nudge the Home Secretary and ask him to meet me about those two cases?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise important constituency matters here, and I will be happy to write to the Home Secretary on her behalf.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Since my election, it has been a joy and an inspiration to get to know the Alive and Kicking project, which plays a vital role in the service of elderly and disabled people in my constituency, in the north-east of Glasgow. Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was opened by one of your predecessors, Michael Martin, on 15 December 1988, which was a month and a day before I was born. For the last 30 years it has been led by Anne Marie Robertson and Eulalia Stewart. It has been recognised at a national level, including with a Queen’s award for voluntary service in 2008. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking and congratulating Alive and Kicking on its excellent work as it celebrates its pearl anniversary, and will she consider granting a debate on the excellent work that voluntary organisations such as Alive and Kicking do to prevent social exclusion and to involve our elderly people in the later stages of their lives?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raises this wonderful charity, Alive and Kicking, which has obviously been alive and kicking since before he was, although he is very much alive and kicking these days, to extend that analogy. I absolutely share his enthusiasm for all the fantastic charities that do so much, particularly for people who might be vulnerable, elderly or with disabilities. I am absolutely happy to join him in praising them. He might like to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can talk more about what they are doing for his community.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a surprise to be called. [Interruption.] It is lovely to have friends, isn’t it?
In her answers to other questions, not least that from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the Leader of the House rightly outlined what may happen should this House decide not to endorse the deal that has been brought forward. She rightly says that if the House rejects that deal, the Government cannot bring forward the European Union withdrawal implementation Bill. However, under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government would have to bring forward a statement within 21 days to outline their intentions. Could I encourage the Leader of the House to take back to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet the point that, while it may be their prerogative to take 21 days, bringing that statement forward as soon as possible after any vote would be in the national interest and would allow the businesses in our constituencies to do some planning, without waiting until potentially the new year?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will appreciate that the instructions of the House are the instructions that were given in this place through the withdrawal Bill. However, the Government are clearly trying to be as collegiate as possible across the House to try to get the best possible deal for the UK as we leave the EU. I will certainly make sure that his thoughts are passed on.
Point of Order
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I raise two gentle points of order, which are linked to yesterday’s Official Report?
At column 6WS, under Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, there is the heading “Policy”. It would be helpful if, in the electronic record, which can be accessed online, the words “Fixed odds betting terminals” were put in. At the moment, “Policy” could mean almost anything, and those who are searching for a history of the change in the limits on fixed odds betting terminals might be helped by that addition. Could I ask that that might be considered?
The second point is slightly different. At column 322, at the end of points of order, Mr Speaker said:
“If there are no further points of order, perhaps we can now proceed.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 322.]
However, the same paragraph goes on to him reading out the letter from Sir David Natzler, the Clerk of the House. I wonder whether, in the electronic record, that might be split, and that there might be a separate heading so that those who want to look for that could find it more easily.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, and I will certainly feed back his comments to Hansard.
Veterans Strategy
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Veterans Strategy.
Before embarking on this important subject, which I am very pleased to get to, perhaps I can just reflect on the debate we have just had on Brexit and our relationship with the European Union. Whatever happens, and whatever our relationship with the European Union, Britain must and will continue to play a pivotal role on the international stage, especially when we are seeing threats diversify and become more complex, added to the fact that we are testing the limits of our planet. Very few nations have the ability and desire to step forward to help shape the world around them. Whatever ID card we end up having in our back pockets, we must remain a nation with tier 1 capabilities—with that full-spectrum defence posture—and able to protect our people, defend our interests and, of course, promote prosperity. I hope we will gain the full support of the House as we make the case in the forthcoming spending review for a strong defence capability.
It is appropriate to reflect on this weekend’s events, which are very much in our minds. The nation paused to give thanks to a previous generation, which stepped forward to defend our values, our shores and our way of life. The numbers are difficult to contemplate in today’s context. Lord Kitchener’s call, “Your country needs you", went out to an entire generation. Six million Britons were mobilised. I had the opportunity to visit the Bournemouth grammar school in my constituency on Friday, before the anniversary of the armistice. I learned that 600 children had lied about their age in order to sign up for the cause—to sign up to defend Britain. One hundred of them did not return.
Also prior to the anniversary of the armistice, I had the honour of visiting the cemetery at Tyne Cot—the hill that was fought over in the third battle of Ypres. Those who have visited this incredible cemetery will know that there are 12,000 war graves there, two thirds of which do not have names on. Around the walls are 34,000 more names of those who were never found—the soldiers there is no gravestone for. That shows the scale of what happened a century ago, when an entire nation was mobilised.
War then was not glorious, as we thought it might be. It provided new tactics and a different approach to our armed forces, which we see in many ways today. There was also a focus on something that we absolutely recognise today: post-combat care. Many of the household names that we are familiar with—Combat Stress, Blesma, SSAFA, the Royal British Legion and even the poppy appeal—all stem from the first world war. SSAFA actually goes back further than that, to the Egyptian campaign.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister is raising a very important issue, but I think that it has sometimes led us astray in our diagnosis. A lot of work done recently suggests that people who have been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder have actually suffered a blow to the head. We would do far better to treat them for that and to provide neuro- rehabilitation than to treat them for post-traumatic stress disorder. Does the Minister recognise that?
Mr Ellwood
I do recognise that. If I may, I will come on to that. I am simply making the point that this was the first time there was a recognition of shell shock—post-traumatic stress disorder. These were names that did not really apply then. There was not a full understanding of what was going on with our troops, but there was a recognition by the nation that we had to look after our returning troops in one form or another. There was a duty of care, which is what we are focusing on today.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
What the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is referring to is often described in the United States as mild traumatic brain injury, or MTBI. We have done a lot of research in this country, but if we are honest, the Americans are a bit ahead of us on this. As the Minister will know, it is often very difficult to diagnose accurately what is PTSD and what is MTBI. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the Chamber, and I say to the Minister that we probably need more research in this area to devise the best possible balance of treatment.
Mr Ellwood
I am building up to that but, to respond directly, it is important to share an understanding of what we are doing. I had the pleasure of attending the Invictus games in Sydney, which is such an illustration of how those who are injured, whether mentally or physically, find a new chapter. They are unconquered. They are moving forward with their lives successfully.
At the same time, in the margins of those events, we brought together all the Veterans Ministers of the “Five Eyes” community to share knowledge. The American team presented studies on suicide prevention, on blast injury and on mental health. It is interesting to see how we can compare notes, pick up ideas and share best practice, which is so important. Indeed, I was pleased to sign a memorandum of understanding to make sure that we share our knowledge and provide the best possible support for our veterans.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We should put on the record in Hansard our thanks to Prince Harry for ensuring that the Invictus games have become a reality. As happens all too often, the recognition of his initiative has perhaps been lost, and it would be good for the House to reflect that the Invictus games started through his efforts, his energy and his interest.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The whole House, indeed the nation, is indebted to the efforts of Prince Harry, who once again was able to come to the games, which are his creation. The Invictus Games Foundation has now got into a steady drumbeat of bringing together people from across the world every second year, and I am pleased to say that we will now hold a domestic event in the interim years, which again is all about bringing together and supporting those, whether they are in the armed forces or are veterans, who need to be given support to move forward. This has been hugely successful.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On Monday I had the privilege of launching the “Walking Home for Christmas” campaign with Invictus games medallists. The campaign, with Help for Heroes and Walking with the Wounded, is targeted at veterans whom we struggle to support over the Christmas period, when they are at their most vulnerable. Does the Minister agree that it is at this point that we need to honour the covenant and make sure that we not only respect those who served during world war one and world war two but now remember those who served more recently?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. The Ministry of Defence works with Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion on making the Invictus games a reality and in pushing forward Prince Harry’s vision.
The hon. Lady is also right to illustrate the changing requirements of our veterans. The profile will change. Over the next 10 years, the numbers will move from 2.5 million to 1.5 million, and many of the latter will be veterans from the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. Indeed, they do not even call themselves veterans, which is interesting—they see themselves as ex-forces, leaving the veteran label to national service and second world war personnel. Either way, she is right that that support should be there.
None of this was in place when I departed the regular forces. I do not mean to say that we have got it right—it is a moving force that morphs as we develop—but I am pleased that we have the building blocks to advance our support for veterans. The 10-year strategy is based on the covenant, which the hon. Lady mentioned. The covenant is often raised in Parliament, and it is the nation’s commitment to making sure that anybody who has served is not hindered by their service or held back because of what they have done. That message needs to go out to every single Department, not just those in and around the MOD. It can be tricky for a Department that perhaps is not military facing to be aware of its responsibilities to veterans and armed forces personnel.
Our second pillar of support is the veterans board, chaired by the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, which brings together the Secretaries of State of the various Departments so that local government is held to account. I encourage every Member of Parliament to visit their local authority and ask, “Who is your veterans champion? Who is the person who will help to challenge or deal with matters of homelessness and housing?” The veterans champion will be the focal point in their area.
Ruth Smeeth
I met a veteran earlier this week who went to his local authority to say that he was homeless and needed support. He had been out of service for four months, and he was told that there were others in the queue who were more relevant, including refugees who had just arrived. He ended up homeless and was supported by Help for Heroes. Does that not suggest that local government is still not fulfilling its obligations under the covenant?
Mr Ellwood
I do not know to which local authority the hon. Lady is referring. If she would like to write to me with the details, I would be more than happy to look into the matter. She is absolutely right. Like many other aspects of national government, we are seeing different standards across the country, and often it is to do with the historical relationship that a local authority has had with the military.
We would expect Portsmouth to get this right, because of the longevity of its relationship with the military, likewise Staffordshire, with the arboretum. In Bournemouth, in my own constituency, this is not something that comes naturally, because Bournemouth is a very new town with no relationship with the armed forces, but that should not prevent it from being aware of its duties in honouring the armed forces covenant.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister rightly mentions Staffordshire. In North Staffordshire we have the tri-services and veterans support centre, which provides in-community pastoral support and experienced services for ex-service personnel who live across Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire. The centre is currently in a building owned by Staffordshire County Council. Does he agree it is important that such services are protected and safeguarded, and that it is the duty of local authorities to make sure that such services continue for the long term? Without them, problems will arise in the acute sector, which is not good for anyone.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly. We want every local authority to recognise what its duties are to help our brave veterans. The more we can do that via the veterans board, the better it will be. In these discussions we are illustrating the variety of support that veterans receive, whether it be from charities, local authorities or, indeed, Government Departments—
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Ellwood
I was about to finish my sentence, but of course I will give way.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I apologise. I thought there was a full stop. I am embarrassed.
If local authority veterans champions, who in my constituency include Terence Chapman of Arun District Council and Tom Wye of Worthing Borough Council, and others were encouraged to make known the kinds of things they are doing—obviously preserving confidentiality in individual cases—more people would know what is available and to whom they can refer if there is a problem. The key task is to make sure there is not a problem so that the veterans champions do not have to be brought in because the covenant is built into what local authorities are doing.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is right. It should be the mindset, the modus operandi, of any local authority. It should be very clear who the armed forces champion is—it should be on the local authority website so that people know who to go to.
Many types of support are available for veterans. A veteran may be in a very dark place when they seek support, and the last thing we need is a confusing picture as to where that support can be found. Charities have been mentioned, as have local authorities and national government. Each plays a role, and we have established the veterans gateway to provide a single portal where any individual can make a phone call or go online to seek the necessary help to guide them to where they need to go.
Again, this is in its infancy. We have 400 service-facing charities, not all of which are signed up to the gateway. We want them all to sign up. The big ones have signed up, but they are also running their own call centres. Either way, we need this to work. We need this to be the vehicle, the single portal, for any veteran who requires help. When I refer to help, it is not necessarily physical support—it might be help in looking for more employment or in setting up their own initiative—but this is where they need to go.
Chris Bryant
I wasn’t, actually, but the Minister has enticed me. I agree with everything he has said, and my local council is determined to do everything it can, because we send a lot of young men and women from the Rhondda into the armed forces. However, I just wonder whether there is something the Government need to do as a prior step, which is to check for brain injury the moment somebody joins up. There is strong evidence now to suggest that kids from poorer backgrounds are four times more likely to have a significant brain injury either in their teenage years or before the age of five. Once they have had one brain injury, they will have another. If we could screen everybody coming into the armed forces, we might be able to provide a better standard of living.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. First, let me say that screening does take place; medicals are done to make sure that people are fit for service. He touches on a science that is still evolving, and which I have only just started to learn about. Someone who is subject to a blast injury might stand up and walk away from it, but be unaware that their DNA has been shunted in some way that could have long-term impacts. We are still coming to terms with recognising that, and we need to advance our understanding of it. The Royal Foundation, which is supported by Prince Harry and Prince William, is providing funding for us to look into this and get a better understanding of what is happening. That goes along with our studies with the Forces in Mind Trust. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight something that understanding brain injuries is pivotal, particularly if they happen prior to someone’s signing up or on the battlefield.
Ruth Smeeth
Is the Minister aware that Blind Veterans UK has initiated some research in this area to see what the difference is between PTSD and brain injury?
Mr Ellwood
We could almost have our own debate on this issue, first because of its importance and secondly because we are talking about exactly the sort of advancement we need to undertake to look after and care for our veterans.
Let me move from the detail and step back to the wider support we provide to our armed forces. I have mentioned the armed forces covenant as the overall policy and the Veterans Board getting Departments working together. We also have the gateway, and Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, is doing a far better job of bringing together like-minded charities to work together. They are now working on cluster lines, so the employment cluster is bringing the relevant charities together and the same is happening for housing and mental health. They are doing far better work in co-ordinating their activities, as has been touched on.
Another strand or building block, which we have sort of skirted over so far, is our entire mental health strategy. I look back at my own time serving, when even a mention of any form of mental injury was a no-no; people did not raise it whatsoever, not just in the armed forces but in society. We are now seeing a far more open-minded approach to this issue, whereby people are putting their hand up and saying, “Yes, I have had a problem with this.” If people do that at an early stage, help can be brought in and it can prevent problems from incubating.
Our new approach is encouraging parity between physical and mental injury, so that we promote better practice and tackle the stigma attached to mental health, which helps prevention in the first place. We are also getting better at detection. Whether someone is a platoon commander or a ship commander, they are encouraging people to step forward and look out for mental ill health, and then the individual involved or a friend of theirs may put their hand up. We are saying, “Put your hand up, get yourself checked out. It is okay to do so. It is okay to say you are not okay. Get it treated. Get it sorted. Get yourself back on the frontline, without fear that you are going to be affected in your promotion or long-term prospects in the armed forces.”
Mr Francois
As the Minister may know, although some in the House may not, the Royal Marines developed trauma risk management—TRIM—which has been so successful that it is now taught across the whole of the armed forces. The essential thing about it is that someone’s mates absolve them, saying, “Look, Bill, we can see you’re struggling, mate. It could happen to any of us. It’s happening to you. Let’s not pretend. Let’s go and see the medical officer and get some help.” Will the Minister confirm to the House that that has been an extremely successful policy, meaning it is now easier for people to be honest about what they are going through?
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend makes such a valid point, and it is not just Bill, but Belinda and everybody else. It applies not only to those in uniform but to the armed forces fraternity as a whole—it is the families as well. They may be the first people to pick up on the fact that something is not quite right. In my time, people held back and kept this to themselves, but it would incubate and then they would leave the thing they loved. It then became an issue for a veterans charity or the NHS, because people had not dealt with it from the earliest point. My right hon. Friend rightly points out that TRIM was developed in the Marines, who got it from the United States, and it is now being rolled out as better practice right across the armed forces.
The veterans strategy is about bringing all those things together. It is about looking forward and having a 10-year vision of a cross-government approach. I am pleased to say that it has the support of all the devolved Administrations. It is so important that we can let veterans and their families have a full understanding of what to expect from the armed forces and other agencies for the rest of their lives. The strategy is also about promoting and celebrating what our armed forces do; we need to tell people about their success stories. We have not been particularly good at that. We also need to promote the fact of what those in our armed forces actually do.
I was struck by a phone call I had with my mother, in which we talked about her father—my grandfather. I remember sitting on his knee and him talking about the battle of Passchendaele. I could not even say the word, as I was only four or five at the time, but I remember it because he showed me his medals. I had a personal connection with somebody who fought in the first world war. My two little boys do not have that connection, as there is now a distance. The cohort of people who are directly connected to armed forces personnel today has shrunk considerably from what it was at the time of the first world war, when an entire generation—every village, town and city—was affected. Everyone knew somebody who had been injured or killed, and they knew people who had survived. We need to make sure that there is not a skewed view of what it is like to be in our armed forces.
I make it clear that someone who serves in our armed forces will come out a stronger, better person, but obviously some people require help. Some of the things we see on TV, with “Bodyguard” being the latest example, give the impression that if people serve, they may be mentally affected. What does that do to the reputation of the armed forces? What does it do to a potential recruit if they get the idea that they might be mentally affected if they join the armed forces? It hinders them in signing up. What does it to do an employer that does not have exposure to or knowledge of what it is like being in the armed forces? It gives them a bias against signing up someone who has military experience. Veterans themselves might also hold a stigma about this because they have served. We need to change that. We need to be very proud of these people—particularly in Britain, because of the professionalism of our armed forces.
That brings me back to promoting and celebrating what our armed forces actually do, and we are going to push that forward through a consultation paper. The veterans strategy has now been published—it was issued yesterday, and there will now be a consultation lasting 12 weeks, in all corners of the country, to address how we implement it. It will deal with how we put this work into practice, which will be slightly different in different places. We are all aware of the challenges in Northern Ireland, where a very different approach needs to be taken from that in other parts of the country. I look forward to getting feedback from individual Members, as well as from charities, councils, academics, service providers and veterans communities themselves, on how we can make this work.
Extra funding has come through from the Budget; we have an extra £2 billion for the NHS mental health budget and £100 million for the rough sleeping strategy— that must obviously include the veterans aspect of the issue, which we have touched on. There is a further £10 million in the covenant fund trust, from which individual charities and organisations can bid for further funding to promote their own schemes and so forth. We have also developed specialist support, through the veterans’ mental health and wellbeing fund and, in England—this is a mouthful—through the veterans’ mental health transition, intervention and liaison service, which provides specialist locations where mental health issues can be looked at.
Jim Shannon
The Minister has referred to the regions and what more can be done. Will there be money set aside for the regions specifically?
Mr Ellwood
I had the pleasure of attending the Remembrance Day commemorations in Belfast at the weekend, and I took the opportunity to visit a veterans charity and to speak about how we can activate and invigorate the covenant over there. I also met some of the hon. Gentleman’s Northern Ireland colleagues, and I will be going there very soon to bring stakeholders together, because I appreciate that there is a different picture over there. We need to work closely at the grassroots level, but we will create a plan to implement the strategy in a way that meets Northern Ireland’s specific needs.
I am pre-empting the Opposition spokesperson, but we need better data. We need to know who our veterans are and whether our GPs are helping them, and we need to understand particular challenges such as suicide and so forth. We are now looking at ways of making that happen and working with the Ministry of Justice so that we can better track what is going on. We check with our veterans 12 months after they have departed the armed forces, and they already go through a transition package, often lasting two years, to make sure they are equipped. As I well remember, moving from the armed forces, where one feels part of a family, a unit, a community, a tribe, and into the wide open world is quite a culture shock, and we need to be there for veterans. We cannot just give them up. Some 90% of those who go through the transition service are in education or employment within six months of their departure.
I hope that I have illustrated my passion, and that of the ministerial team I am pleased to see here supporting me, for the veterans strategy. The Defence Secretary shares that passion and very much wants it to work. We are advancing our support for the armed forces community. To those thinking of a career in the armed forces, I say: I encourage you. You will do things you never thought you would do, you will learn things about your character you never thought you would learn, and when you march on the parade square for the very first time, you will make your mum and dad very proud as you begin to represent the nation. To those serving, in both the regulars and reserves, and to their families, I say: thank you for your service. You allow us to say we have the most professional armed forces in the world. And to our brave veterans—I mentioned Kitchener saying 100 years ago, “Your country needs you”—I simply say: your country owes you. We owe you a debt of gratitude and support for the rest of your lives.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Before I start, I must apologise. I might be a little croaky today, but I will do the best I can.
I am pleased that the Government have scheduled a debate on the veterans strategy in Government time. It is vital that we recognise the unstinting service of our brave armed forces men and women and ensure that the best opportunities are available to help them transition into civilian life. This is first and foremost important for veterans themselves, their partners and children, but it also benefits our wider society if their skills are used to best advantage.
Many veterans transition successfully into civilian life, but we want easily accessible early intervention and support services for the veterans who need them. Moreover, we should aim high and be ambitious for our veterans. We want to see the best possible opportunities and the smoothest possible transition to civilian life for all our veterans. Let us not forget that delays in obtaining suitable housing, accessing appropriate educational opportunities and getting a job also have a detrimental impact on veterans’ families.
I welcome the Government’s publication of a veterans strategy, but, as we all know, this is only a first step. There will now be a consultation. Then what will really matter will be the implementation of the strategy, its outcomes and how it actually improves the lives of veterans. I do not doubt that the Minister and his team are committed to improving provision for veterans, but there has to be a genuine cross-governmental approach. As the strategy explains, the vast majority of services for veterans are delivered through Departments other than the MOD. It is not enough for the Government simply to establish the ministerial covenant and veterans board. There must be a genuine commitment from the Treasury to ensure that the necessary funding is provided to local councils, health services, housing providers, further education colleges and the devolved Administrations, so that they can all deliver high-quality services for our veterans.
Time and again, there seems to be a complete disconnect between the warm words of Ministers about their concern for veterans and the way they vote in Parliament, as if the problems have nothing to do with the cuts and policies they have voted for, and as if it was not they who voted to slash council budgets by 50%; who have cut further education funding by over £3 billion in real terms since 2010—25% of all FE funding; who have broken the link between inflation and benefits for the first time ever; who introduced the bedroom tax; and who have not built the affordable homes needed to end the housing crisis. Fewer new homes for social rent were built last year than in any year since records began. It is often as a direct result of those decisions that veterans are left homeless, unable to access courses to help them into a new job, waiting too long for health care, getting into financial difficulties and even sadly ending up in the criminal justice system. Estimates on the number of homeless veterans vary.
Mr Francois
I apologise, but as the hon. Lady has introduced a note of partisanship into this debate, I have to ask her something. Last Thursday, I took part in a debate on LBC with a vile man called Aaron Bastani, who is a close associate of the Leader of the Opposition. During that debate, he said, first, that the poppy was a militaristic symbol and that it was racist to wear it, secondly, that the Royal British Legion should be abolished and, thirdly, that celebrating the Invictus games was like
“putting lipstick on a pig”.
As I understand it, this man is a member of the Labour party. Will the shadow Secretary of State condemn unequivocally those remarks and assure the House that he will be thrown out of the Labour party without delay?
Nia Griffith
As I have already said on air—it is on the record—I absolutely deplore that man’s comments. I reassure Members from all parties that he holds no position of office in the Labour party, that he is not an elected representative, and that he in no way represents the views of my colleagues, many of whom were at their local war memorials up and down the country on Sunday morning, wearing their poppies very proudly. The man is an utter disgrace and I have called on him to retract completely what he said. It is up to the party authorities to consider further action in his case.
Let me go back to homeless veterans. Estimates of the number of homeless veterans vary, but it is truly shameful that anyone who served this country should find himself or herself on the streets. This Conservative Government must take responsibility for their failure to deal with the problem. Rough sleeping has doubled since 2010, and homelessness is a direct consequence of the Government’s decisions on housing and welfare reform and their unprecedented cuts to local council budgets and charities. We cannot deal with homelessness unless we build more homes that are affordable to rent or to buy. Labour is committed to dealing with homeless veterans through our comprehensive plan to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. As we have announced, we would make 8,000 affordable homes available for people with a history of sleeping on the streets, and a Labour Government would build 100,000 affordable homes a year—homes that are affordable to rent and homes that are affordable to buy.
Despite the severe cuts imposed on councils by the Conservative Government, many councils are trying to improve their provision for veterans. I wish to share with the House some examples of the Labour council initiatives to provide homes for veterans, which I have had the privilege of visiting. Cardiff Council has worked with the housing organisation Trivallis and the Welsh Veterans Partnership to deliver a new housing development in Cardiff bay. It is made up of 152 properties, of which at least 15% are allocated to veterans and their families. The Welsh Veterans Partnership also provides help with employment, education and healthcare. It is clear that this multi-agency approach is beneficial to the resettlement and wellbeing of veterans and their families.
I have also visited the Nelson Project, which is part of Labour-controlled Plymouth City Council’s award-winning plan for homes, an £80 million investment to increase the quality and supply of new housing in the city. The project enabled ex-service personnel themselves to help to build a 24-home site, thereby providing them with construction training and other valuable job-based skills. Thanks to that initiative, many have subsequently found work in the construction industry.
Armed forces personnel develop a whole range of skills, and it is vital that those skills are tradeable in civilian life. I know that some work has been done to link the skills people gain while serving in the armed forces to recognised qualifications, but there needs to be a comprehensive system of recognition and equivalence to established qualifications, so that veterans themselves value the skills they have and employers recognise those skills when recruiting. We also need comprehensive provision throughout the country to enable former armed forces personnel to improve their employment chances by enhancing their existing skills or learning new ones. In the fast-changing world we live in, even what we learn today can be out of date by next year, and people may need to retrain or upskill more than once during their working lives. That is why we on the Labour Benches are so committed to lifelong learning. As we set out in our manifesto last year, we will introduce free, lifelong education, delivered through further education colleges, to enable everyone, including veterans, to upskill or retrain at any point in life. That is in sharp contrast to the Government’s cuts to adult education. Of course, one way in which former personnel can gain valuable skills is through apprenticeships. Labour has also made a commitment to set targets to increase the number of veterans who are able to take advantage of such opportunities.
Labour Members also support a guaranteed-interview scheme for veterans, in which former service personnel who meet the minimum requirements for a job would be guaranteed an interview. Some local authorities, such as Labour’s North Tyneside Council, already operate such schemes, and we are keen to see them rolled out throughout the country as a practical way to help veterans with the transition from the services into employment.
Let me turn to mental health. As I have already said, the overwhelming majority of personnel transition into civilian life without any difficulty, so we must challenge any negative stereotype that serving in the forces leaves personnel in some way broken. That is clearly not the case, and I was pleased to see that the veterans strategy makes reference to the work that is needed to challenge the public perception of veterans and to dispel unhelpful myths. At the same time, proper support must be available for those former service personnel who require access to mental health support. The effects and consequences of mental health problems can be devastating.
Earlier this year, the Defence Committee found:
“It is still taking too long for veterans to access treatment when they need it, and levels of care vary across the UK.”
There is particular concern that the guarantee contained in the armed forces covenant—that veterans should receive priority treatment if it relates to a condition that results from their service in the armed forces—is caveated by the phrase “according to clinical need”. The reality is that any meaningful prioritisation is near impossible when waiting times are often far too long, even for urgent cases. The fact is that our mental health services are under considerable pressure, with funding cut by more than 8% since 2010 and the number of mental health nurses down by 6,600.
The strategy aspires to better collaboration and co-ordination of veterans’ services, although there is little suggestion as to how that might be achieved. I am also a little disappointed that the strategy does not do enough to tackle the thorny issue of keeping track of veterans. It is not straightforward because, while some veterans will want to maintain contact with their previous employment through one of the many military organisations, others may not. We need a discussion about the usefulness and the practicality of keeping in touch with veterans.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I declare an interest as my husband is a veteran and a veterans’ champion. Professional services need to become available, but veterans themselves have great skills in understanding the experiences that other veterans have had. I wonder whether Members across the House could come together to agree that peer-to-peer support would also be extremely important for veterans and to support the funding of that moving forward.
Nia Griffith
The hon. Lady makes a valuable contribution to this debate. We would certainly want to look into that.
The strategy does not really consider whether parts of the armed forces covenant should be statutory and not simply aspirational. It does not propose a strategy to develop and maintain greater consistency across all sectors of our public services. The Minister has rightly expressed concern that there is patchiness across the country. There are some fabulous examples of things really working well, but that is not always consistent. There is a debate to be had about the degree to which Government should intervene. Potentially we should be thinking about making some things statutory. Perhaps there should be some requirements to improve consistency across the country.
This morning, I visited the charity Veterans Aid. It is clear from its work that veterans can and do experience many of the same socioeconomic challenges that are faced by society at large—challenges caused by eight years of the Government’s austerity programme. Indeed, among the support that Veterans Aid has provided in the last year is emergency food and money for clothing, needs arising from the problems that many of us see all too often across our communities. It beggars belief that, in 2018, anyone—veteran or otherwise—should need that kind of assistance, but we know that the use of food banks has skyrocketed under this Government.
To be clear, the point is not that veterans specifically are reliant on emergency funds from charities, but rather that it is the political decisions made by the Conservative party since 2010 to slash social security and to impose measures such as the bedroom tax that mean that the real issue is poverty. It is all very well having a strategy that identifies ways to support veterans, but we cannot divorce that from the context of eight years of Conservative cuts. So let us have a proper joined-up approach across Government which increases funding for mental health services, funds lifelong learning and builds more affordable housing. That is what is needed for our veterans and, if this Conservative Government cannot deliver it, a Labour Government will.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate about how we should best look after veterans who have given so much in the service of their country.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who is acknowledged by the House as someone who knows a lot about this subject. We are grateful for her remarks. It is a particular pleasure to participate in a debate with a Minister who is passionately committed to the support of veterans and who is respected across the House of Commons as a result. We know where his heart lies and we respect him for it.
I offer apologies to the House for my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who chairs the Defence Committee. Ordinarily he would have spoken in such a debate, but unfortunately he had an unbreakable commitment today. He has asked me to a make a particular point in his absence about war widows. There is a key flaw in the current policy around war widows, which is that if someone’s spouse died or left military or war service after 31 March 1973 and before 5 April 2005, and the widow remarried or cohabited, they were required to surrender their war pension or compensation. A majority in that group are the widows of soldiers who were killed during the troubles. They have had to deal with not only the loss of their spouse, but the financial hardship that has been caused to many widows who have wanted to move on with their lives in new relationships. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I sincerely ask the Minister to give us a commitment that he will at least reflect on this issue and see whether there is more that the Government can do.
I have also been asked to pass on apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who cannot be with us today. I think that the whole House would acknowledge that he has done a tremendous job as the Prime Minister’s representative for the commemoration of world war one. My hon. Friend has asked me to make a brief point in his absence about the new centre for conflict wound research. He knows a lot about that subject, because a few years ago he undertook a report for the Prime Minister on the treatment of those who have suffered injuries, particularly to their limbs. The new centre for conflict wound research opened on Tuesday at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham. It has been sensibly located close to the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre at Stanford Hall, which has absorbed the old Headley Court in Surrey.
The case for moving Headley to the midlands was underpinned by the promise of closer NHS and defence medical services collaboration, so that military and civilian patients and researchers could benefit holistically from complex trauma experience. However, the NHS has not fully engaged with the same enthusiasm as the military, which means that the original vision is falling short. Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues in the Department of Health to see whether something can be done to put this right? The more we learn about treating such wounds and the better we become at dealing with prosthetics, the more that that will benefit civilian NHS patients, as well as, obviously, veterans. It is literally a win-win.
In many ways, this is a timely debate, not least because it comes a few days after the nation paid tribute to its war dead and wounded in the centenary of the armistice, to which the Minister rightly referred in his excellent speech. I believe that this event really captured the imagination of the British people, with ceremonies held the length and breadth of the United Kingdom—from the ceremony at the Cenotaph right down to individual commemorations in villages and parishes around the nation in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In my constituency of Rayleigh and Wickford, I attended four services that day, including the lighting of a centenary beacon in the evening, and I know that many colleagues on both sides of the House will have done the same. As an aside, I know that the weather was variable around the country, and that therefore a number of MPs were prepared to get quite wet in the rain to pay their respects, unlike some other prominent people on the world stage.
In Rayleigh, people across the community have been working for many months to produce 12,000 knitted poppies, which were put together to create a waterfall effect around Holy Trinity church in the town centre. People came from far and wide—much to the delight of local traders—to see this wonderful tribute. Let me take this opportunity to place on record my sincere appreciation to all those involved from my constituency and beyond, including the redoubtable Rayleigh women’s institute, the Hockley and Hawkwell day centre, and the mother of my PA, Adele Jacquin—it is always good to read your staff into the record, Madam Deputy Speaker—who lives in Cheltenham and also knitted poppies for the display. I have often been proud to be the Member of Parliament for Rayleigh and Wickford, but I do not think I have ever been as proud as when I saw that commemorative waterfall unveiled.
At the Remembrance Sunday service, our local rector, the Rev. David Oxtoby, chose to read an extremely fitting poem, “It is the Soldier” by Charles M. Province. It is a brief poem, so I will share it with the House because I think it is apposite:
“It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.”
I humbly submit to the House that when we are talking about veterans, that is a fitting tribute.
As well as those who fell in battle, we must remember those who survive and are now veterans of their military service. The question we must ask is: are we doing enough for these people, to whom we owe so much? The Defence Committee is in the middle of an inquiry into veterans’ mental health, to which the hon. Member for Llanelli referred. It is constructive to compare what we do for the physical rehabilitation of veterans with what we do for their psychological rehabilitation.
For physical rehabilitation, we have world-class facilities—formerly at Headley Court, and now at the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre at Stanford Hall. In addition, veterans who have lost their legs can now be fitted with the Genium prosthetic—arguably the most advanced prosthetic limb in the world—following a grant of more than £6 million from Her Majesty’s Treasury to equip all those veterans who lost their legs either in Iraq or in Afghanistan. I am proud to say that I had a little to do with that when I served in the Minister of Defence.
In mental health services for veterans, however, we are not world class, and there is much further to go. For example, on Tuesday the Committee took evidence from academics and health professionals from around the UK that revealed, among other things, that in parts of Wales and Northern Ireland, it takes almost a year for a veteran who is identified as suffering from mental illness to begin to receive appropriate treatment. That is bad enough for anyone, but for those who have served their country in uniform, it is completely and utterly unacceptable.
One of the challenges in that sphere arises from what could be described as conflict between two different philosophies—the hon. Lady mentioned this as well. On the one hand, we have the armed forces covenant, the two key principles of which are enshrined in law within the Armed Forces Act 2011. The second key principle is that of special treatment where appropriate, especially for the wounded or bereaved. Under that principle and the broader armed forces covenant, veterans should receive priority treatment under the national health service. However, when one asks the NHS, one gets a very different answer: patients will be treated strictly in accordance with clinical need.
A little while ago, we took evidence from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who opened the debate, and from his opposite number in the Department of Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). Unsurprisingly he backed the covenant and she backed the NHS. We need to resolve that dilemma and we need to do so soon.
As well as the NHS, a number of charities do important work in this field, including the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, SSAFA—the Armed Forces Charity— and Combat Stress. As part of our inquiry, the Committee plans to visit a residential centre run by Combat Stress early next month.
Another charity that does very valuable work is Care after Combat, which was founded in 2014 by Jim Davidson OBE, a notable comedian who has given a great deal of his personal time to an extremely serious subject. Care after Combat provides struggling veterans who have fallen into the prison system with a mentor, who is usually a veteran themselves, which ensures that they have access to someone with understanding in their final year in prison and then their first year outside. The mentor is often able to have conversations that a GP or probation officer simply would not. They are able to spot mental health warning signs and other issues through more regular contact than a clinician would have, and then to report back accordingly. I would like to see more Government support for what that vital charity seeks to achieve, and I ask the Minister to make a note of that.
I regret to say that there is one area in which the Government are letting down veterans very badly indeed, and that is the whole area of “lawfare” and the legal witch hunting of predominantly Army veterans by others for political or financial gain. This applies to veterans who served in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of Iraq, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) led the Defence Sub-Committee’s inquiry into the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, the revelations of which were so appalling that the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), had the team shut down.
However, the Ministry of Defence then effectively created a son of IHAT, which has continued to inquire into Iraq veterans. We now know that one law firm specialised in bringing cases from Iraq. The ironically named Public Interest Lawyers went so far as to completely fabricate cases against veterans, basically to try to make money out of them. That firm has now mercifully gone bust—no one laments its passing—and its lead lawyer, Mr Phil Shiner, has been struck off.
Other firms acting in this field—not necessarily illegally in any way—have made a great deal of money out of pursuing veterans. One of those is Leigh Day. The Committee hopes to invite representatives of that firm to give evidence to our ongoing inquiry into veterans and “lawfare” to justify their actions to Parliament. If we are successful and they have the courage to appear, I am told that half the Ministry of Defence will take the morning off and come to sit in the Public Gallery—we will need the Boothroyd Room at least. By the way, if they do turn up, they will not receive a fee.
I am afraid that this is also the case in Northern Ireland, where the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Service of Northern Ireland now propose to go right back to 1968—50 years ago—and reinvestigate every single killing that took place in the course of the troubles. The process would be entirely one-sided, because members of the IRA have been given so-called letters of comfort by Tony Blair, meaning they are effectively off the hook. As far as I am aware, no one who has been given a letter of comfort has ever been successfully prosecuted for terrorist offences. I do not say this lightly, but the Northern Ireland Office, which is one short of its complement today, should be ashamed of itself.
Conversely, there are no letters of comfort for Army veterans, only the prospect of being investigated and, in some cases, hounded for things that happened nearly half a century ago. For instance, an inquest has now begun into killings in Ballymurphy in the 1970s. I understand from press reports that pro-republican lawyers are likely to summon up to 100 soldiers to give evidence. That would take an extremely long time and no doubt cost a vast amount of public money. Let us call this what it is. It is a racket, and it has to stop.
As a result, a couple of weeks ago I and a number of ex-Army colleagues in the House helped to organise a letter from 104 Conservative Members of Parliament, supported by some Opposition Members and 50 peers, including General Lord Dannatt and four previous Chiefs of the Defence Staff. The letter, which we delivered to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street, called on her to put an end to this outrage that has continued on her watch. I am pleased to say that, as a result, we have now been offered a meeting with the Attorney General early next month.
There are now essentially three strands of potential progress. The first is the Defence Committee inquiry, which is ongoing and will probably report sometime in the new year. The second is the specialist team that has been established within the Ministry of Defence by the Defence Secretary—the Minister will be very familiar with it—which is also looking into this issue. The third is the initiative led by the Attorney General, who I am pleased to say has been tasked by the Prime Minister with trying to sort out this problem.
I and other members of the Defence Committee very much hope, perhaps by some combination of these three strands, that we will be able to find a solution so that people who have bravely served their country in uniform will not be hounded in this way in the future. They are people such as Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings, who served several tours on Op Banner in Northern Ireland during the troubles. He is now aged 77, and he is dying of terminal cancer. Unfortunately, it is likely that he will die before his trial for events that were all investigated thoroughly at the time takes place.
There is also the case of Royal Marine David Griffin who, at the age of 77, is facing reinvestigation over an incident in 1972, when someone was killed during an ambush in the middle of the night. The nature of the attack he was under means that Mr Griffin has no idea whether it was he or one of his colleagues who was responsible. An investigation was held 46 years ago, yet Mr Griffin now faces further reinvestigation—and they knew where to find him, because he is a Chelsea Pensioner in the Royal Hospital Chelsea.
We now face a situation in which alleged IRA terrorists, with letters of comfort, are away scot-free—they are laughing at us—while we go after Chelsea Pensioners instead. That is, quite literally, outrageous, and it is happening on this Government’s watch. The public, veterans, serving personnel, their families, over 100 MPs and over 50 peers of the realm all believe the same thing—enough is enough! I call on the Government to stop this outrage, and to stop it quickly.
In summary, the centenary of the armistice is a strong reminder of the vast debt we owe our veterans of the past century, and we should give our veterans and their families the best possible support once they have left the service of the Crown. Although, as the Minister rightly said, there has been good progress in many areas, of which the whole House can be proud, there is also one burning injustice: we now seem to be treating terrorists more favourably than Chelsea Pensioners. I ask the Minister—I believe he is with us in spirit, although he cannot say so—to talk to his colleagues in government and for God’s sake make this nonsense stop.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). Despite having done so on several occasions, I am never quite sure that I get it right. He always gives a forensic speech, and we are never in any doubt about where he stands on, well, pretty much anything actually. I always welcome his contributions.
I start on a somewhat sad note because the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) felt the need to resign from her position as Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Defence. I think that is a loss to the defence team as she was very good to me and my colleagues when we tried to communicate with Ministers at the MOD. Who knows what lies ahead for her? I think that the consensus between us will perhaps end there for now, as the Brexit debate gets more intense.
I am glad this debate is taking place. I was slightly concerned, given the pressures on time and events this morning, that it would not happen. That would have been a great shame, given that we have just had a whole period of remembrance leading up to Remembrance Sunday at the beginning of the week. It was a pleasure to take part in the main centenary event in George Square in Glasgow city centre on Sunday, which was a very moving affair—the city council confirmed it as the largest remembrance event the city has held in the square for a number of years, which shows the desire there is among Glaswegians properly to remember and show thanks to the armed forces and veterans who have passed in previous wars.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend will know, I was not at George Square in Glasgow because I was at the Nitshill war memorial service. It was the first time there has been a main service there, and there were 300 people in attendance and 34 wreaths laid by community groups. The Friends of Nitshill War Memorial committee should be thanked for all their work over the past five months.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I echo that entirely, and congratulate my hon. Friend on getting that point on the record.
I also had the pleasure of attending the Queen’s Park football club remembrance service. It will surprise anybody who knows me to hear that it was ever a pleasure for me to be at a football stadium, but this was a particularly noteworthy affair. As well as holding a remembrance service for football players who served in the first world war, some of whom did not return home, the club put together the Great War Project, which documented the lives of those who had played for Queen’s Park football club in my constituency, which is the oldest football club in Scotland. It had invited the families of the football players and soldiers from world war one. I even met a constituent of the now departed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who was involved in the Scottish National party in 1945. Needless to say, he cannot support us any more from Tatton, but that goes to show the breadth of people that a remembrance event can bring together. I congratulate everybody at Queen’s Park football club on putting together the Great War Project, and I look forward to visiting the Great War Project at Langside church in my constituency tomorrow night.
Let me return to the veterans strategy. I genuinely welcome this document, which is a good starting point for a serious discussion. I particularly welcome the fact that on the veterans ministerial board we have Ministers from devolved Governments, in particular Graeme Dey, who is the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans in the Scottish Government, and the only veterans Minister in a devolved Government anywhere in the UK—something that other devolved Governments could pick up on. I also welcome to his post the new Scottish Veterans Commissioner, Charles Wallace, who was appointed by the Scottish Government. I think he is the only veterans commissioner in the UK, and he will become a veteran on Tuesday. I had the pleasure of meeting him earlier this week—I think he was in front of the Defence Committee on Tuesday—and I am sure that all Scottish Members wish him well in his new role.
There are obviously many crossovers with devolved competencies as far as supporting veterans is concerned, just as there are with local government. I welcome the £1.3 million announced by the Scottish Government for the veterans fund to support veterans organisations across Scotland. I welcome the £10 million of additional funding for veterans with mental health needs. I also welcome the fact that the Scottish Government changed the rules to ensure that the war disablement pension was exempt from income assessments.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those involved in organising remembrance events across South Lanarkshire, including South Lanarkshire Council headquarters which lit up its own building to commemorate the anniversary. My constituent Thomas Stuart White from Carluke currently receives 70% of his war disablement pension and a lifetime award of disability living allowance. However, he was only granted a three-year personal independence payment and he feels it is unjust to veterans that this does not recognise his commitment and his public service.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that case. I encourage her to write, if she has not already done so, to the armed forces and veterans Minister, whom I have certainly found to be attentive in dealing with such cases.
We all have to realise the vast change that will happen in the veterans community over the next 10, 15 and 20 years. There is a whole generation associated with the second world war—we are very low on numbers associated with the first world war—who will be dead in a few years’ time. Our veterans community will be younger and more diverse in terms of men and women and its ethnic make-up at time goes by. Any new strategy we implement has to take cognisance of those changes. The expectations of veterans and ex-forces personnel will change as well. They will expect more from the Government and more from local government. They will expect better, joined-up service delivery from local and national Government.
There are different models around the world that we can learn from, and we should not be afraid to ask some pretty big questions. For example, does it need to be the Ministry of Defence that is responsible for veterans’ services? In the United States, there is an entirely separate Government Department for veterans’ services. New Zealand has a separate Government Department. In South Korea, a veterans council is responsible for the implementation of veterans’ services and strategies. We know—let us be charitable— how stretched the Ministry of Defence is at this particular juncture, so perhaps we could be asking these types of big questions and question whether the models and the set-up we have really will serve people best in the future. We could learn from the Danish model when it comes to supporting serving members of the armed forces who go on to become veterans and ex-forces.
Most of the Members here in the Chamber regularly attend debates on defence. They will know that the Scottish National party has called for the establishment of an armed forces federation. In fact, we introduced a Bill to that effect. I know many Members do not agree with that, but I am not convinced we are serving them well at the moment. Members of the armed forces do not have a statutory body to advocate on their behalf. They really just rely on Members of Parliament. I hate to point it out, but when one looks at the numbers who are here today less than a week on from Remembrance Sunday, we have to think that perhaps Members of Parliament are not the best ones to always rely on—exceptional circumstances do exist, of course. But why can veterans not have a body, similar to the Police Federation, which has a role in statute to argue for better terms and conditions for them and their families while they are in the armed forces, when they leave the armed forces, and, as others have mentioned, for that crucial transition phase.
We need to better codify the role of the veterans champion. Sadly, about 10 minutes after the Minister got to his feet, Glasgow’s veterans champion, who was in the Gallery, had to dash off to Euston to get his train back to Glasgow. In Scotland, we have 32 veterans champions, one of whom is the husband of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). There are 32 different people doing this across Scotland—I am not sure how many there are in the rest of the UK—and there is not any real code to say what their job is or what their responsibilities are. Someone might be in Glasgow, where we have a really active and excellent veterans champion who operates within the city council—within the local authority—but then they might cross the boundary into another local authority and find that that is not the case.
I get the feeling that part of why we do not codify this is that it will end up costing more money, but that cannot be a reason not to do so. I speak to veterans champions who are full of the best will in the world but who are not entirely sure where their role fits within the council. In Glasgow, for example, our veterans champion is not an elected member of the council, which I think is a good thing. It gives them freer rein, but in my understanding, in most local authorities they tend to be Lord Provosts—the Scottish equivalent of the town mayors that exist in England and other parts of the UK. It is absolutely a worthy role, but exactly what the role of a veterans champion is, and is not, needs to be tightened up.
I come to the issue of suicide among veterans. I agree with the Minister that we cannot allow the myth to be perpetuated of the broken warrior, as it were, but at the same time, we cannot ignore failings in the system. On the issue of suicide, it is my understanding—I think the Minister said this at the Dispatch Box and in comments to the media at the weekend—that there will be moves to start recording suicides among those who have served in the armed forces but who no longer serve.
Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Justice and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government asking how this would work. My understanding of English law, limited though it is, is that this would have to happen through coroners in England—I think that coroners exist in Wales and Northern Ireland as well, but we do not have coroners in Scotland, so presumably it would fall to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service there. Where there are changes to that in England or Scotland, I hope that we can do this in a joined-up way and that we ultimately get to the place we all want to be, where we have proper figures so that we can better understand and tackle these issues.
In summing up—I am conscious that other Members want to get in—I welcome the publication of the strategy and the fact that we are having this debate in Government time. There is a debate next week on the armed forces covenant as well, and that is a good thing. It is good to see that there is now some pretty strong parliamentary impetus behind this, but I say to Members here and Ministers: let us not be beholden to any sacred cows. Let us think big. Let us be bold and let us all work together to make each of our communities the best place possible to be a veteran.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), and I thank him for his kind and generous words. He can be assured that while I may not be in government, I will continue to believe that defence has nothing to do with party and everything to do with the nation and those who have served us, and that all of us have a responsibility to them. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be their advocate when necessary—be that the families, those serving or those who have left the service—and to support them by lobbying Ministers in whichever Department we are required to.
It is a real pleasure to stand here in a debate in Government time about veterans—those who have served. When I arrived here in 2015, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) helped me to understand that there had been a loss of impetus from the Government in speaking about military matters in the Chamber. A number of us have taken that as a challenge over the past three years, and it is fantastic that our incredibly passionate Minister, who took on this role last year, has driven forward the determination to have these conversations more widely and to push out there the issue of those who serve and have served.
I want to mention a very special remembrance event last weekend in Berwick—that most northern point of England. Twenty-five of the most northern parishes came together in Berwick parish church to lay wreaths. We held a vigil on Saturday night. The wreaths were placed in the shape of a cross in front of the altar, which was moving in itself, then four of my young cadets from the Army Cadet Force came and stood at each corner of the cross. They stood there from 7 pm until 11 pm, without moving, as the names of all those who had served in world war one and world war two were read out slowly by an extraordinary group of people, the representatives of each parish, old and young. There were many there who were new to their parishes, and many whose families had been part of that community for 100 years.
It was profoundly moving to see those young men and women, whom I know well because I spend a lot of time with them, standing to attention and respecting not only those who had died but the armed forces. I know that three of them want to enter the armed forces themselves and take on the extraordinary challenge that is faced by all members of the forces. It means a really exciting career and learning exceptional skills, but it also means a willingness to put their lives on the line if necessary to defend us and our nation. That will never cease to amaze me, and to fill me with the utmost respect for every single one of them.
When I set up the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant when I was first elected, I wanted it to speak up for armed forces families. The covenant put something very good into law, but I began to discover things accidentally, as so often happens when a person becomes an MP—we discover all sorts of subjects with which we have had no particular relationship before. Military families came and talked to me about their struggles and the issues in their lives, from school places to housing to medical assistance. You name it, they were all there: the challenges of moving around, the challenges of not having a base and the feeling that the system could not support them.
Three years on, it is really exciting to see a strategy for veterans that has a wrap-around effect on their families as well. I pay tribute to the Minister, who I know has battled with the system to get it to where it is now, and also to his team. I have worked with many of them over the past year, and I know that they have put in an enormous amount of work to reach the beginnings of a strategy that will be incredibly supportive to all the families.
I want to raise a number of issues about which my knowledge has grown over the last three years, and on which I think we can make progress in the years ahead. One of them is the question of money. Families who are seeking support in relation to a particular issue—as well as veterans, and, in some cases, those who are still serving—say, “It is so complicated. There are so many charities. I don’t know where to go. It is very difficult. How do I start?”
For a long time I worked in the north-east with a group called the Community Foundation. That extraordinary organisation, which has now spread across the country, originated in the United States. Regional charities’ finances are held together in a pot so that the money that they all hold can be used in a better way. Members of a central board can direct those who come seeking support to the right charity, so that an individual who is probably in distress, or is battling other issues, does not have to go hunting for the right support. There are more than 3,000 charities, many of which hold very small amounts of money and have a particular focus. A charity may have been set up by a family who had lost someone who served, for instance.
If we could draw charities together to work in a collaborative, central way so that people seeking support could go to a central point and a board would direct them, that would relieve them of a great deal of stress. There is so much support out there—it may not be in the part of the country where we live, but that does mean that it does not provide the right specialist care for the person we are seeking to support. I will leave that suggestion with the Minister, but I should be happy to follow it up and see whether we can have a more cohesive conversation with charities. I have spoken to some of them about that already.
The veterans gateway, which was set up last year, is a great start in that it provides people with an initial central point to go to. During its first year it has responded to many questions, from “Where can I get my medals replaced?” to “My husband is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and I do not know where to go.” An extraordinary range of questions have been sent down that telephone line. The team are working to build the network and signpost people in the right direction, but the question I would ask is, are we really tracking whether the right outcomes are achieved for those who call? I am not sure that we are there yet.
Sometimes there may be an easy question for which there is an easy answer—big tick, it is sorted. That is fantastic. But I remain concerned that people are signposted to a charity that ought to be able to help, but no one from the gateway is then checking that they have actually received that help. So they may end up back in the ether, still struggling to find the support that they need. I ask the Minister to set out—or to consider, if this is not being done—how we can have a real tracking system so that the outcome of the support the gateway is supposed to provide is actually achieved. Some of the cases will be difficult, and will not simply entail making a direct phone call to the next person, with the solution then being provided.
That brings us on to a wider question about the MOD’s responsibility to look after veterans. That question has frustrated me, because one reason why the covenant was such a great thing for David Cameron to put into law in 2011 was that that is not only the MOD’s responsibility. Although the MOD does of course have a duty of care to those who have served and have needs afterwards, that should be a cross-Government project. The veterans board was a great start, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) for battling to get it into the manifesto so that it could come to fruition at the end of last year, but I am not sure that every other Department understands the vital contribution that they each make, because veterans and their families are affected by their work just as everybody else is.
If the covenant is to be real, we must realise that we have committed as a nation to giving veterans and their families support without question. That is what the covenant means to me: it means that we value them for the rest of their lives. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) said, for many of our veterans now, that is going to be a very long time—they are going to live long lives with challenging issues and disabilities that will appear later down the line, especially mental health problems. We see Northern Ireland veterans now coming out with severe mental health problems, 20 or 30 years after they served.
As a public services community we must make sure we are ready to pick up these issues. I worry that we are always thinking, “They were soldiers once, so it’s the MOD’s responsibility.” That is not good enough; that is not what the covenant should be. I concur with the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) that we should consider taking the covenant to a higher statutory level, rather than simply having it setting out its vision. The MOD’s job is to defend us; that is its purpose—to be prepared for war, to have the deterrents to try to prevent war from happening, but to have soldiers, sailors and airmen ready to take us to war if necessary. That is the MOD’s job, whereas the job of the NHS is to look after us if we are sick, and the council’s job is to provide people who need a house with housing and to look after education services. All those issues affect veterans and their families, because they are participant members of our society for the rest of their lives. So we must continue to question whether we leave the responsibility for the covenant in statutory terms in the hands of the MOD, or whether the Government and Parliament should consider taking it to a higher level.
I receive many letters such as the following one, which is from a serviceman’s wife, because families contact me all the time. I apologise if my voice breaks while reading it, as it is not an easy letter to read. I will read it anyway, because it illustrates the issues we are struggling with:
“I write to you to tell you of my experience of living with a husband who has PTSD following his tour in Afghanistan in 2010.
This weekend may have potentially seen the end of our marriage and there is a real risk my husband will self-harm to end his life. His behaviour has caused me to ask him to leave. He has gone to his Grandma’s and my understanding is his parents have contacted the correct health authorities to get the help that he needs. They have moved faster than any of our local authorities have here. He has previously presented at his local GP who told him to self-refer to a local mental health charity. I find it shocking that people have to “self-refer” when they have a mental health condition. The temptation is to just go home and do nothing, brush it under the carpet, do it another day, ultimately delaying treatment.
He has received community CBT and EMDR from people who have absolutely no experience in dealing with conflict trauma. The hospital he presented at yesterday said the treatment he has received has been a sticking-plaster no more, no less, and that he is seriously ill.
This has been ongoing for eight years. For eight years I have had to live with his financial mismanagement and deception, which has taken a sinister turn over the weekend. His actions are not compatible with a stable marriage and for the sake of my children and I, I have asked him to leave to seek treatment.
I have never received any support from the military as to how I deal/manage with my husband’s PTSD. My husband likewise hasn’t had any contact from the Army. I just cannot comprehend this lack, and total disregard, for their duty of care.
He was medically discharged for physical injuries he sustained during that tour in 2014. He served in Helmand as a platoon commander leading young men at a young age in an area that, without exception, was the most dangerous place in the world. How can the army not follow up with serving members of the forces to check they are ok when people have died on patrols that they have led? People have lost limbs, had spinal fractures, have been injured in an IED explosion themselves. How can they not check that the families have the support that they need? How can they risk more potential casualties in the form of suicide? I am alone in facing this. The government cannot delegate their duty of care to charities. Relying on people to approach them.
My husband talks a good game. On any vague assessment he would present as healthy. He hid his physical injuries for 2 years as he felt others had it worse. This ended his career. He will likely be wheelchair bound at 60. In terms of his physical injuries, his Regiment have utterly failed in their duty of care. He has never been treated at any of the army rehabilitation centres because a doctor only spotted the physical injuries 2 years post tour when he presented for something else. He didn’t fall into the category of ‘conflict wounded’. He has had to rely on community treatment and has always had to push for his own treatment, paying privately in each instance. It just baffles me how this can all happen. His Regiment, Army and the government have abandoned him and us. Our local mental health services are woefully inadequate to deal with such complex injuries and I am not a qualified mental health expert! My greatest fear is that this letter will be included one day as an exhibit in a bundle”—[Interruption.]
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is very passionately telling the story of someone she knows very well. That example is replicated across the whole of the United Kingdom, and every one of us has encountered people that that has happened to. I want to support her in making her comments, and to reassure her that everyone in the House understands exactly what she is saying.
Mrs Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman; he is very kind. This Chamber is the most wonderful thing when it works in a collegiate fashion.
The serviceman’s wife finishes by saying:
“My greatest fear is that this letter will be included one day as an exhibit in a bundle collated for the Coroner. I have no voice but I know that this cannot continue.”
I get far too many of those letters, and I imagine other colleagues do as well. We do our best, but the challenge is to provide these people with a voice. The Minister cannot independently battle his way through the system and make every Department suddenly behave as it should for these families. I have been raising this matter for a while, and he will not be surprised to hear it again.
The covenant cannot work solely by virtue of kindness, consideration and everybody out there saying that it is a good thing, perhaps without understanding exactly what that responsibility means or rising to the challenge of prioritising where it is required. At the moment, the covenant is a carrot. It is a positive, uplifting and encouraging message of support from the Government to those who have served, but that is not enough if families are having to experience years of frustration. The military do not ask for help—that is an extraordinary phenomenon. I have an RAF base and a large Army base in my patch, and no one there ever complains about anything. I hear about problems from a vicar or from a schoolteacher, and then I go looking to help to solve them. They never come to ask for help. They will battle on, because they are a can-do community that will try to find its own solutions. They have an extraordinary gift of resilience. As a community, they look after each other because that is what we ask them to do in times of war, but the families cannot always do that.
I believe that we need to create a system that involves some kind of covenant ombudsman. We have a parliamentary ombudsman to go to when nothing else has worked, and we need a covenant ombudsman as well. It should be an organisation that sits outside any Department and that is empowered by Parliament to have a voice and to fight wherever it is required for each family. It cannot be right that we receive letters such as the one I read, that we cannot solve those problems and that such families have had to wait so many years before they feel it is okay to stick their heads above the parapet and cry, “Help!”
I leave that with the Minister. It is not a new request, but it is one we need to drive forward. The carrot mentality is just not enough to ensure that families get the support they need when they need it.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the impassioned contribution from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), who is a huge advocate for veterans and, indeed, the Royal Marines. Commitment to and passion for those men and women serving in and leaving the world’s finest armed forces can surely be found on both sides of the House. As the Member of Parliament for the home of the Royal Navy, that is heartening for me to see.
I will keep my remarks brief this afternoon. Along with many Members of this House, I spent last week at remembrance services, selling poppies in my constituency. Needless to say, we in Portsmouth were again profoundly moved by and deeply proud of the bravery and sacrifice of service personnel past and present. Pride in our armed forces comes naturally to my city. As the home of the Royal Navy, we know personally of the remarkable courage and expertise in service of those generations that have fought for our country. That is why I am so passionate about ensuring that our Government, our public services and the economy work to support them during their service and beyond, during their transition back to civilian life. So I thank the Minster for his statement today; it was hugely helpful to hear.
This is not a party political issue. Personally, I could not care less from which party or place support for our veterans comes, so long as it is comprehensive and generous. This strategy is at least a good start—it certainly makes lighter reading than today’s withdrawal agreement. I await the results of the consultation with great interest, and I anticipate serious policy commitments. Specific and effective policy is needed because, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, the challenges facing veterans are serious and deserve a response of equal weight.
The Minister may recall from my correspondence with him my support for the armed forces covenant, and I am proud that Portsmouth City Council has recently received the gold award. Equally, however, he may recall my urging him to give some teeth to the covenant and for it to go further.
The same could be said about this strategy and the Government’s support for veterans generally. I wholeheartedly endorse each and every one of the key themes set out by the Minister’s Department. Co-ordination of services, data collection and proper recognition for our veterans—these are all things I have been campaigning for and absolutely support. However, to be realised, they require timely action from Government. That is especially true of the shocking lack of worth our veterans feel is placed in them by the wider population. According to a heart-breaking report by SSAFA, 62% feel undervalued by society. I was pleased to see that recognition of veterans was a key strand in the veterans strategy. I also greatly welcome plans to introduce an official veterans ID card, and perhaps the Minister could update the House later on progress on that.
It is clear that action to improve life for veterans does not have to be hugely costly or complex to be effective. I will confine my remarks to an issue that is not only particularly pertinent, but something whose treatment it would be simple to improve. That issue is mental health, and specifically data collection on suicide rates.
I should say from the start that we should in no way stigmatise our armed forces personnel. The majority of ex-servicemen and women adapt very well to civilian life. The skills required in the forces are unique and an extremely valuable addition to the existing talents that those in our services often hold. As the Minister and other Members of this place can attest, life in the forces can preface great success in civilian and even public life. That does not mean we can afford to lose sight of those in our armed forces who do need support and care.
The UK is almost unique in not requiring coroners to mark an individual as a veteran. As a result, only one of the 98 coroners in England and Wales does so. That is something almost all our allies do, including Canada, America and Australia, because it makes sense. This is important and useful data about and for the veteran community.
How can we possibly go about solving this issue if we do not know the scale of the problem? The Ministry of Defence currently puts the tri-services suicide rate at eight per 100,000, which is notably lower than the 15.5 per 100,000 rate that the Office for National Statistics reports among the general male population. I have no doubt that everyone in this House would welcome that state of affairs but, put simply, significant research from the Royal British Legion and my own conversations with the veteran community suggest that it does not reflect reality. The fact is that we do not know for sure, which is exactly my point.
In answer to my written question of 8 October on the plans that the MOD and the Ministry of Justice have for introducing such a recording duty on coroners, the Minister said he had had no such conversations with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. Perhaps he could say today whether he might consider introducing a coroner recording duty as part of the veterans strategy. The move would fit well with the Government’s aim, as stated in yesterday’s document, of enhancing the collection, use and analysis of data across sectors to effectively address the needs of veterans. I believe the measure would have broad support from the public and the military, including from General Sir Dave Richards. I urge the Government to listen and to capitalise on this remarkably simple but invaluable step.
I also pay tribute to the campaigning of the Portsmouth News and the Sunday People, and specifically to the dedication of Portsmouth veteran Stephen James, who has developed a fantastic peer-to-peer chat app, All Call Signs, to connect former services personnel, allowing them to support each other directly when mental health difficulties arise.
We owe services personnel far better than to turn a blind eye. Inevitably, the data itself would not help us to reduce the number of tragic incidents, but it would be invaluable in bettering our understanding of the issue, which is crucial if we are to tackle it. Again, I encourage the Minister to incorporate this commitment to veterans.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who is clearly a champion of the personnel who serve or are based in his constituency.
Most veterans and ex-services personnel have a positive experience of military service and many, like one of my sons-in-law, gain skills and experience that benefit them as they migrate to civilian life. They form lifelong bonds with their service colleagues in many cases, and it was poignant at the recent Remembrance Day services in both Ayr and Cumnock to witness for myself the strong bonds among the veterans and ex-services personnel who came together to remember their fallen friends.
Despite the morning weather in Ayr, it was a pleasure to see so many of the young generation turn out on that Sunday—I am sure it was the same in Glasgow—and that has to be applauded and welcomed. I thank Rev. David Gemmell and the poppy knitters of the auld kirk of Ayr for a wonderful display. The auld kirk was bedecked in colourful poppies that enriched the service that day.
For some veterans, however, their military career was not such a positive experience, and whether or not the root causes of the mental health issues experienced by services personnel are a direct result of that service, it is crucial that veterans receive proper support during and after their military service. I am pleased to see that support is foremost in this veterans strategy.
The UK charity Combat Stress operates the wonderful Hollybush House facility in my constituency, affording support and sanctuary for former members of the British armed forces who are suffering from mental health conditions such as PTSD. Clearly, treatment is free of charge to all veterans, and, most important, it is provided by a dedicated team of professionals based there. For the small minority who do not immediately adapt to civilian life as they migrate from their service days and who lose their way momentarily or, as sometimes sadly happens, for a lifetime, the veterans strategy and veterans gateway services at Hollybush House are to be welcomed. Together with the new veterans units, they will improve the response for those in need.
Additionally, there are charities such as Care after Combat, whose stated aim is to change people’s lives for the better. It is working with the NHS, a great player in assisting our veterans, to support veterans who have fallen foul of the justice system in an effort to reduce reoffending. Unforgotten Forces comprises 15 leading organisations, led by Poppy Scotland, which together afford enhanced support to veterans and ex-service personnel aged over 65 and to their families in Scotland. That is to be welcomed and applauded. Clearly, wide and able support is available in the voluntary sector, and the key word is “voluntary”; many of these people give of their time freely to assist our veterans and ex-service personnel.
I am pleased that the Government have, in this strategy, outlined what more can be done centrally to support veterans. Apart from the invaluable armed forces covenant, which has been discussed and to which at least 3,000 organisations have now signed up, veterans will also benefit from the Department for Work and Pensions’ Disability Confident scheme, and the Career Transition Partnership has successfully supported some 200,000 veterans into new careers after their service since its inception some 20 years ago.
This Government have done a great deal to support veterans, but we cannot be complacent, as the task is not at all complete. As I have previously mentioned in this House, I very much welcome the extra funds announced in the Budget to support veterans, which are in addition to the funds the Government previously committed to support the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust. I also welcome the consultation mentioned by the Minister, which is soon to get under way, but we have to pay attention to the outcome of that consultation. There is no point in having a strategy that is simply put on a shelf; we have to act as a Government and as a nation to ensure that what we learn from that consultation is applied effectively.
I welcome the scope of this strategy, which will ensure that our veterans receive the support they need well into the future. Should a veteran stretch their hand out for help or assistance, this nation must grasp that hand firmly and give them that assistance, which they so richly deserve. I wish to personally thank those whose military service has protected me, my family, my constituents and indeed this country over many years.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow colleagues in this very moving debate about critical issues facing veterans and, in particular, to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). His area shares a great affinity with Glasgow, because it is of course the traditional home of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, the Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment, which now forms part of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, as its second battalion. I had the great pleasure of visiting 2 Scots at Glencorse barracks in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley), where I had discussions on a number of issues facing serving personnel and members of the regimental family who are now veterans.
As of July, I count myself as a veteran, having served 12 years as a reservist in the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I am very proud to wear the regimental tie today, just as I did on Sunday, when I went to George Square, as I have done for several years, to join many of my friends at the cenotaph to remember our friends who have suffered life-changing injuries and, in my case, a good friend who was killed in Afghanistan in 2013. That is a moment for us not only to reflect, but to get together to have a good old time—there is a social aspect. For many people, particularly those who have worn the uniform, Remembrance Day is about not just solemn remembrance, but having a bit of a laugh, which is always good. We did get on to talking in great detail about many of our friends who have suffered, and in the past few months alone, the Royal Regiment of Scotland veterans have taken it upon themselves to set up a Facebook group to try to help each other.
It has been eye-opening to see the difficulties that many people are going through but which they often cannot make clear to their comrades. There is a culture, particularly in the Army, of not talking about these things. Instead, people have traditionally been told to man up, get on with it and pull themselves together. In the past, it was an admission of weakness for someone to say that they had difficulties, so it is great that people feel that there is now a safe space in which to make those vulnerabilities clear to their friends and to seek help.
In that spirit, I welcome the thrust of the veterans strategy, particularly the cross-cutting factors that have been identified, which chime with what I would like to see happen. However, I am concerned that the document is too high-level and that there is not enough understanding of the intended outcomes. There is a broad intent, which is laudable, but a lot of details about how it is to be delivered are lacking. The term used in the Army is “mission command”: beginning with a general intent, but then building up a fuller picture of what is to be delivered on the ground. It is ironic in an organisation with an effective command-and-control system built into its DNA that when it comes to supporting our veterans, that seems to fall apart and the same rigour is not applied. I would like that to be addressed as part of the further development of the strategy. This is crucial for collaboration between organisations and the co-ordination of veterans services. The urgency burns through and needs to be gripped.
A lot of charities are doing excellent work and many have been mentioned today. A great example in the city of Glasgow and the wider area is the Erskine Hospital, which was founded over 100 years ago by one of the Yarrow family whose son was killed on the battlefields of the first world war. So riven with guilt was he that he formed a charity along with William Macewen, one of the leading surgeons in Glasgow at the time, to create the first proper prosthetic limbs to help those who had suffered life-changing injuries in the first world war. The charity continues to help veterans of all ages to this day.
We have to recognise that the demography of our veterans is changing. The Army has downsized by around 20,000 regular soldiers in the last five years alone. That is a significant outflow of people, many of whom will have served in conflict zones—very intense conflict zones at that—and those people will have very particular and urgent needs that need to be catered for. I do not feel that there is any sort of infrastructure to deal with those specific requirements, however, and that needs to be dealt with.
I have spoken about this next issue several times in the last few months, because many of my friends and people I know personally have been affected. Indeed, we lost four Jocks from the Royal Regiment of Scotland in the space of two months, in July and August this year, which is a terrible suicide rate. Indeed, it is estimated that over 50 veterans have taken their own lives in the last year alone. We have to recognise the true scale of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) talked about data collection, and we need to get a grip of that. Other countries have shown the way on how to deliver it, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) hinted at. We need more robust infrastructure that assists in identifying veterans so that we can then help them.
Often, when we think of a veteran, we think of someone who has heroically served their country and then left on good terms to go off, be of good character and deliver in civilian life. Technically, anyone who has served one day in uniform is a veteran, and many will be discharged in difficult circumstances, such as for drugs problems or reasons of chaos in their personal lives. They will leave on unhappy and difficult terms, and simply to cast them out and not give them the right support is to fail them.
I think of the four Jocks who have taken their own lives in the last couple of months. In many cases, they had already reached out for support. I spoke to Combat Stress about members of the Royal Regiment of Scotland who had sought help for PTSD. Many had identified themselves. Indeed, one of the men who tragically took their life, Jamie Davies, had been recording video diaries of his experiences. They are haunting to watch now in the knowledge that he ended up taking his own life. His descriptions of the difficulties he encountered are harrowing. To think that we all failed him is something we have to take cognisance of.
The sooner we get the strategy robustly developed and delivered meaningfully, the better. We cannot simply have these high-level aspirations; we need a robust plan that actually tells us in root-and-branch detail what we will do differently. That is what we need to understand.
The charities do a great job, but many people who go to charities, and particularly veterans, get some assistance—they might get cognitive behavioural therapy, for example—but find that it does not meet their needs. It is often a box-ticking exercise—“Right, we’ve consulted this veteran. He’s presented himself and we’ve dealt with it”—that might not resolve the issue, and there is no ongoing support once the course of treatment has finished. They then fall through the net and find no way out other than to take their own lives. That is the tragedy that is happening.
It is not that we do not know that these people are there. We know they are there, but we are just not robust enough in helping them, which is why we need to look into having a structure that takes its inspiration from the command-and-control structure that is embedded in the armed forces so that we can robustly deal with these issues. My view is that a caseworker ought to be appointed to every veteran who leaves the armed forces as a single, consistent point of contact to whom they can turn, regardless of the length of time since they left. That would be an ideal structure, because veterans often fall into the gaps between different charities and organisations. They have to go through the same history and issues, and end up overwhelmed with frustration. They disengage from the process and find themselves lost—and then they are lost to their friends and family as well, when they take their own lives. That is the true carnage that is being caused and its cost.
We do not know the true scale of the situation—the people we identify may be just the tip of the iceberg. Veterans who find themselves in prisons will not identify as veterans. Veterans who find themselves with mental health problems, drug addiction or alcohol addiction will not identify as veterans, because they do not want to embarrass their friends—they do not want to embarrass their cap badge. We have to get a grip of this issue, on a number of fronts.
I welcome the strategy in broad strokes. The cross-cutting factors that have been identified—improvements in data on the veterans community, public perception and understanding, recognition, and, most importantly, collaboration and co-ordination—are laudable, but that does not go nearly far enough. We have a crisis on our hands in this country, and it is an ever-looming one, as more than 100,000 people in our country have served in the theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan in Operations Telic and Herrick. If we do not help them, an absolute epidemic of mental health problems will be visited upon us. The needs of the world war two generation are different from the needs of the generation—my generation—that has served in conflict zones in the past 15 or 20 years. We have to get an understanding of how to tailor services to their needs. I welcome the Government’s strategy but, echoing the sentiments expressed from the Opposition Front Bench, we need to go much further to get a grip and to deliver for our service personnel—we owe them nothing less.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and particularly to follow the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), given the personal tales we have just heard. He was right to say that it is very welcome that people can now talk about their experiences. An awful definition was used a century ago when there was the idea that people who had seen absolutely appalling horrors of war somehow “lacked moral fibre” because they had finally broken after several years of unimaginable experiences. Nowadays, we recognise that there are some things that would break anyone. At the end of “Blackadder Goes Forth”, there are those poignant last three minutes of humour in the most dark of situations. Captain Blackadder says that he pretended to be mad and then realised
“who would have noticed another madman around here”—
they would have to be mad to be in that trench and in that war. What the hon. Gentleman said was very welcome, and it was also very welcome to see him, as someone who has served our country, wearing his regimental tie proudly.
I welcome the overall tone of the debate, starting with the Minister’s speech. I pay tribute to the speeches made by the hon. Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who spoke on behalf of their respective parties. That tone has continued right the way through the debate. It is welcome to have debates on veterans’ issues to ensure that veterans have a voice in Parliament and that their needs are heard here, and that is important because of how things have changed. If we had been having this debate 50 years ago, virtually everyone in this Chamber would have seen action in world war two or world war one. At that time, well over 90% of Members of Parliament were male, and virtually all would have been of an age that meant they had faced conscription in either world war one or world war two, or national service and the Korean war afterwards. The whole of society was full of people—obviously men, at that time—who had seen heavy combat and heavy action.
What really brought the situation home to me was the challenge faced by veterans coming back from Afghanistan. Those individuals came back to a society in which, actually, most people had not had the same experience as them. At a dinner of the armed forces all-party group, I heard a commander say that the casualty rate of his battalion in Afghanistan had been the same as that of one of its predecessor battalions in the Somme offensive. Thanks to modern medicine, however, not so many people died, as many great interventions were made to keep people alive. Fundamentally, however, the wider impact of being killed or seriously injured in Afghanistan was roughly the same as that of the Somme. That really brought it home to me, but a person who comes back from Afghanistan is not returning to a community where every man in the street has had the experience of being either at that battle or another one, which might make them feel very isolated and alone.
That is why, in such debates, I like to pay tribute to the Royal British Legion. I certainly welcomed the comments from the shadow Secretary of State for Defence about the individual member of her party, and it is worth saying that there are many members of the trade union and Labour movements who have died for this country. They have worn our uniform and served to ensure that we can live in the democracy that we have today. I do not think that we should take the views of one—to put it bluntly—idiot and try to paint that as the views of an entire movement that has sacrificed so much to protect our democracy. Clement Attlee, of course, stood shoulder to shoulder with Winston Churchill when this country went through its darkest hours back in the 1940s, and he was clear that appeasement and surrender were not an option in the fight against the evil that was National Socialism.
I particularly want to pay tribute to my local RBL, which not just works with veterans, but provides that link between the military, veterans and the wider community—the community of people who might never have served, but want to support their veterans. I shall start by looking at the work of Paignton Royal British Legion, which is one of two branches in my area. It is led very well by its chairman, John Kavanagh, who is a veteran himself. He takes great pride in his military service and in leading the team. What the branch did for the centenary came from a fitting idea from its secretary, Donna Fortune, about bringing to life the war memorial, which lists the names of 224 sons of the town who volunteered in world war one and never came back. The idea was to have a candle symbolising the light that went out in the first world war, and each candle bore the name of someone on the memorial.
On Remembrance Sunday, as we marked the 100th anniversary of the armistice, young people from the town took a candle from the local parish church, which many of those who fought in the war would have known as it is still pretty much as it was at that time, and took it to the memorial to lay it there. What was particularly fitting was that these young men and girls were about 15, 16 and 17—the age of those who went off to fight. That served as a reminder to many people because sometimes when we go to remembrance parades, we look at older veterans. We therefore might make the mistake of thinking that people who fought in these wars were older, yet the reality is that those who lost their lives and made the ultimate sacrifice were young men from the town who volunteered, went off to do their bit and then never came home. For me, it was very moving to see the memorial in the evening with the candles lit as a reminder of those sons of Paignton who gave their all so that we can have the free Parliament that we have today. I also wish to pay tribute to Don McKechnie, the poppy appeal organiser for the Paignton branch, who has worked so diligently on this year’s successful appeal.
The other RBL branch in my constituency is in Torquay. Its secretary, Arthur Christian, who is a veteran, combines running a local estate agency with supporting the branch. His team worked very hard to produce a superb tribute to the centenary on Torquay seafront on Sunday, which was one of the largest events that we have had in a long time. Back in July, a new standard was dedicated at the local church, and that was specifically done so that it could be paraded at Great Pilgrimage 90, which marked the 90th anniversary of veterans of world war one plus families who had lost loved ones in those famous battles going out to see the cemetery. For those colleagues who have not done this, I can say that it is quite thought provoking to stand at Tyne Cot and look back down at what is called Passchendaele ridge.
It is not much of a ridge, more of a low incline in the middle of flat land. It is where the defenders were ready and waiting and from where they could see into the town of Ypres and see our forces advancing, as those men attempted to assault positions on that ridge. For many, it was where they lost their lives. Sadly, many were not found or, if they were, could no longer be identified by the end of the war.
Veterans are an amazing part of our community today, and the hon. Member for Glasgow South and the Minister were absolutely right. It is easy in these sorts of debates to talk, rightly, about certain issues that affect veterans, but we should also remember that they are an amazing part of our local communities. Eighty per cent. of working-age veterans are in employment and three quarters own their own home, either outright or with a loan. Many are doing brilliant jobs, using the skills they learned in the military in their careers. Without them, our society would be much poorer, not just because of the technical skills they learned in the Army, Navy or Air Force, but because of the ethos of service and putting nation before self that they bring from the military into whatever their career is.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), I have met with Care after Combat and heard about its work with those for whom, sadly, civvy street is not working and who have ended up in jail. It is concerning that an estimated 3,500 former servicemen are currently in jail. At the moment, Care after Combat can reach one in 10 of them, and its work has an impact. First-year reoffending rates among those it has engaged with are much lower, and when they are no longer incarcerated, that is a good outcome for them and the taxpayer.
I was pleased to see the Secretary of State also attend that event and see that commitment and support. I hope that we can hear more from the Minister in his winding-up speech about what support will be available and what is happening across Government to ensure linked-up support. It is not about education; it is about engaging with veterans when they are in prison to ensure that they can come out to a home, to support and, particularly if they have engaged in such a scheme, potentially to find employment.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I also want to touch on veterans and lawfare. I used to be a criminal defence lawyer. Our armed forces are there to uphold the rule of law, and not one member of our armed forces community would wish to see a situation in which the armed forces were above the law. However, it is clear that the balance of investigatory effort and attention paid to matters of the past, particularly in Northern Ireland, has been completely disproportionate. Veterans who were investigated by the relevant authorities at the time now face having to relive potentially difficult experiences decades later. These are incidents where little if any new evidence is likely to be produced, where many of the witnesses will have passed away or where, bluntly, what witnesses may be available might not be the most impartial individuals and where what they wish to say might have little probity or value.
I know that the Minister is committed to finding a solution to this. I know, too, that that is reflected by the Secretary of State, and it is welcome to hear about Attorney General’s work, but I know from my criminal justice background that we have always had the principle of double jeopardy in our system. It is a good principle, and although these cases might not have been taken to court for a formal verdict that would trigger that legal principle, perhaps it could be extended into this area, so that, unless something staggeringly new comes out, where things were clearly investigated and considered at the time, they should not be matters that we look to reopen.
For veterans, like all others, housing is an issue. As we look to tackle our housing problems more generally, this is an area that could benefit veterans and certainly make a difference for them. It is right that we can be very proud of our veterans community—certainly in Torbay we are very proud of them. There is support for them and work is put together, but it can always be better and taken further.
I appreciate debates and I always welcome the opportunity to take part in them. I am conscious of the time and of the fact that we have a rare opportunity to hear from my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I know is a passionate advocate of our armed forces and our veterans, so I will close my remarks by repeating that I welcome this debate and the tone of it. I hope that veterans listening to it feel that their contribution to this country—putting their lives on the line to serve this country and defend its values—is appreciated, and that we will provide the services they need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). I think I have intervened quite a few times now. I am usually the last speaker, but I am pleased to contribute to the debate and thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me.
I have a registered interest as a former serving soldier in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years, and in the Territorial Army, Royal Artillery reserves, for 11 and a half years. The veterans strategy means a great deal to me, not only because of my personal interest as a former part-time soldier, but because the constituency I represent, Strangford, has a good history of interest and service in all the services, whether the Army, the RAF or the Royal Navy.
Like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), I attended four remembrance services last Sunday. The first was at 8 o’clock in the morning at Cloughey, the second at 11 o’clock at the cenotaph in Newtownards, our major town, the third at 2.30 pm in Ballyhalbert, and then there was a church service at 7 o’clock in the evening. At every service, I was struck by the turnout of youth organisations, including church groups, the scouts, the Boys’ Brigade and the Girls’ Brigade, and the cadets. While we noticed those who were missing from the year before, we were greatly encouraged by the number of youth organisations that were on parade. The next generation is coming through, which is good to see.
I thank the Minister for referring in his introduction to the new consultation document. He can expect to receive some applications from my part of the world. It is good news that money has been set aside regionally, so we can all benefit. I know that is what he always wants, and it is what we always want as well.
Looking about at the remembrance services, we noticed the older veterans, of course, but also the number of people in the crowds who were there to watch and support, wearing their medals with pride. It was a reminder that veterans walk among us every day and are not simply older pensioners. When I saw those men and women standing in solemn remembrance, straight backed, medals on their chests shone to within an inch of their life, I felt the deep frustration and anger to which other Members have referred.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is no longer here, but he mentioned certain things that I hope to speak about as well, because it is important to put them on the record. I thought of the depth of frustration and anger that would cause a veteran to ask his constituency MP, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), to return his medals to the Prime Minister a number of weeks ago. I do not know more than what I read in the press, but the reason for that was the witch hunt of ex-service personnel in Northern Ireland due to the Irish Republican agenda to rewrite history. Men and women in their 80s are waiting for a letter questioning them about events that took place some 45 years ago. I thought of that as we thought of our veterans on Remembrance Sunday last week.
It is right and proper to acknowledge the 100-year anniversary of the armistice, but I believe it is also right and proper to acknowledge that we owe a duty of care to the veterans of service in Northern Ireland. We are not fulfilling that duty satisfactorily, with respect and as well as we can. It is estimated that some 300,000 military personnel were deployed in Northern Ireland in the course of Operation Banner, which I served in myself. It was the longest running military operation in the history of the British Army and incorporated service in many aspects throughout the troubles.
Many of those men and women who participated carry the scars of that today. Those soldiers who bravely put on the uniform to serve Queen and country are now sitting in their retirement home or their own home frantically trying to recall what they had worked for years to forget, having knowingly put their lives on the line in the battle against the lowest of the low terrorists—terrorists who believed they were justified in firing into a gospel mission hall in Darkley; terrorists who believed they had the right to blow up a war memorial in Enniskillen with women and children surrounding it; and terrorists who had no qualms whatsoever about sending false information to ensure the biggest fatality of innocent people doing their shopping in Omagh.
For many of those veterans, the pain and trauma of the past is very real. They have memories of holding their dying friends in their arms, of sifting through rubble and human body parts, of the screams of anguish, and of the fear of that car driving slowly up to their checkpoint. While sitting here, I thought of one story in particular. One of the first UDR men to be killed was a fellow called Winston Donnell in Strabane. A car reversed up towards him and IRA gunmen shot him. He was one of the first to die.
These veterans have memories of the fear of speaking to anyone when off duty and wanting to grab a beer, for fear of a honeytrap, or a beating when their British accent was heard. I often think of the three Scottish soldiers who were murdered in Belfast; they are very much on my mind. All those things are re-traumatising veterans, as we allow them to be re-terrorised in order to provide a sop to the republicans, who have no shame about anything they did and inexplicably wish to rewrite history to seem justified.
There was and is no justification for the murder of my cousin Kenneth Smyth on 10 December 1971 outside Clady in County Tyrone. There was and is no justification for the murder of Lexie Cummings, also a former UDR member, in Strabane on his lunchbreak. And there certainly was no justification for the murder of the four young UDR men at Ballydugan outside Downpatrick, three of whom I knew personally. There can never be any justification for that. This debate on the veterans strategy must incorporate a promise to stop allowing republican murderers to justify their actions.
No one was held accountable for any of those murders. No one was ever held accountable for the murder of Kenneth Smyth. Nobody was ever held accountable for the murder of Lexie Cummings. The person who did it works across the border in Sligo and is a prominent member of Sinn Féin. The person who carried out the murder of the four UDR men at Ballydugan got his just deserts in Downpatrick some time later, but the fact of the matter is that seven other people were arrested, and whatever their role may have been, they were not held accountable either. We need to stop allowing republican murderers to justify their actions at the expense of the mental and physical health of men and women who did nothing wrong, other than to dare to be British and to serve their Queen and country.
Any veterans strategy must incorporate support for those questioned and put an end to the questioning by police. The fact of the matter is that veterans who served in Northern Ireland and who live in Northern Ireland get a raw deal. They still have heightened security concerns due to their service and yet have no benefit from serving.
We do not have a right and proper implementation of the military covenant due to the section 75 element of the Belfast agreement, which has given 20 years of excuses for republicans to continue their hatred and persecution of anything that is slightly related to being British. I am proud to be British and proud to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I often refer to myself as a proud Ulster man who lives in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those 20 years of excuses for republicans to continue their hatred show the power of section 75. The Minister referred to it earlier, and I hope we can move that along. I know that discussions are ongoing, and I hope we can get some satisfaction. The most ironic part is that it was those veterans, whom they hate so much, who gave them the right to have section 75 to start with.
I hope that Members will forgive me if I repeat the poem read by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. I heard it for the first time last week, on Remembrance Sunday, when one of the young people was doing readings at the Cenotaph. The poem reads:
“It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.”
These soldiers did not do a shabby job. They did the best they could in situations that we cannot even begin to imagine. We need to stop being shabby to them.
If we medically retire a 30-year-old soldier who joined up at 18—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) gave us an example from her constituency that I must say very much resonated with me—we need, without going into too much detail, to ensure he has a place to live, training for a job that is suitable to the disabilities caused by his service and, vitally, mental health support to help him to deal with the trauma and scars that service has left.
Dr Deirdre MacManus, a lead consultant psychiatrist at Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the transition, intervention and liaison service in London, has said:
“We have seen a greater than 100 per cent increase in referrals over the last six months… We still get soldiers who served in Northern Ireland coming.”
Almost 50,000 veterans have mental health issues, which are often sparked by combat stress. Another 6,000 are homeless and 10,000 are in prison or on probation, as others have mentioned. We need to address those issues as well. I ask myself the question, but I also ask the Minister: are we doing enough? We do look to the Minister for such support, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be forthcoming.
How can we do this better? I want to be able to look the veterans in the eye when I meet them, as I do in my constituency. As I always do, I will meet them on Remembrance Sunday next year. When I tell them, “We are remembering you”, I want to be able say that we have done something in this House to make the situation better.
I want to refer quickly to the charities. SSAFA does tremendous work. I have held a coffee morning for it every year since I became the Member of Parliament, which has raised almost £30,000 for it over those years. Help the Heroes and the Royal British Legion, of which I am a member, also do tremendous work. The hon. Member for Torbay mentioned the Royal British Legion and the great work it does. I suppose it is the principal port of call for most people.
May I also give a plug to Beyond the Battlefield? The Minister will forgive me for saying this, but he knows I will refer to it. It does tremendous work in getting to the people who are under the radar, such as those who do not register with the associations. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned how associations do not always pick them up, but it is funny how Beyond the Battlefield seems to do so. Whether for benefits, housing, health issues or the appeals, it is there and it does tremendous work. So many people across Northern Ireland are indebted to it for the hard work it does. All these charities do phenomenal work, but that should be additional work, not the only support. That is the point we are trying to get to, if we can.
I will conclude, because I am conscious that the shadow Minister and the Minister want to speak. I believe it is time that we enabled the talking in here to be turned into action out there. I believe—I will reiterate this again, as others have—that the urgent thing is to stop the witch hunt against soldiers and start helping all the veterans who gave their all for us.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to this constructive and positive debate on behalf of the Opposition.
Those who work in our armed forces deserve our thanks and appreciation, and they also deserve support should they require it when they leave service. As we know, the transition can be difficult for some. The veterans strategy is an opportunity to set out what additional support may be required and how the Government—in partnership with devolved and local government, and the voluntary, charitable and private sectors—can come together to offer a co-ordinated and holistic range of support services. Labour’s recently published social contract for veterans guarantees support in areas such as housing, mental health and retraining, and I would like to see the veterans strategy developed to offer a similar guarantee.
During this afternoon’s debate, we heard from the Minister about the importance of the covenant, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), and he spoke about the patchy delivery of the covenant across the country. In areas where we have committed armed forces champions, they are driving the covenant forward. Sadly, however, that is not the case everywhere.
We heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), about the genuine need for a cross-Government approach to highlighting support for veterans. She talked about the Government’s poor record in some areas with regard to public service cuts, and about the austerity those cuts have brought to a lot of the services on which veterans and others rely.
We heard from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who raised the case of war widows. He also talked about the range of remembrance events and the display of knitted poppies that he visited last week. That reminded me of my visits to St David’s church in Merthyr Tydfil, which had a very moving display, “For the Fallen”, in the week leading up to Remembrance Sunday, and to St Tyfaelog’s church in Pontlottyn, which also had a very moving display that included a wall of poppies outside the church.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) highlighted the change in demographics over the next 10 years, and raised the issue that will face us of younger veterans who have different needs from those we are used to. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) spoke about the veterans gateway, the need to ensure that queries are properly dealt with, and the need for clarity on a tracking system. A moving account from a veteran’s wife highlighted the lack of support for veterans who suffer from poor mental health. We all agree that more needs to be done on that issue, and that is something that Members throughout the House will support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—home of the Royal Navy—said that the comprehensive strategy is a good start and easy to read, but that it needs to have teeth, as does the armed forces covenant. We also need more data on suicides to enable us better to prevent them in future, and to recognise the scale of the issue. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke about mental health and the need for support. He mentioned the Disability Confident scheme, which I was pleased to launch in my constituency last month.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) welcomed the cross-cutting elements of the strategy, but said that more detail is needed on crucial issues of collaboration. He also mentioned the change in demographics, and gave a moving personal account that recognised the scale of the mental health issues facing our veterans and the need to do more to prevent suicides. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) praised the excellent work that the Royal British Legion does across the country, which we would all echo. The hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned the unique situation in Northern Ireland, where there are a lot of veterans who have put their lives on the line, as well as the work of charities and other support services.
Let me reiterate that Labour supports any strategy that seeks to provide additional support to our armed forces. The strategy includes much that we welcome, including on the need for greater collaboration and co-ordination among agencies, the need to improve the public perception of our veterans, and the need to promote greater recognition of the contribution made by our armed forces veterans, so that they in turn feel better valued by the country. However, although there is much we welcome, it is essential that the strategy, and any support it outlines, is funded properly. We have heard a number of times during the debate, not least from my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, that the services used by many veterans are provided by local authorities and other public bodies—organisations that have had their budgets cut significantly under the austerity agenda pursued by the Government since 2010.
I know that many colleagues in local government would dearly love to provide enhanced services and additional support to our armed forces veterans—indeed, many authorities, public bodies and, increasingly, private companies already try to support veterans and the wider armed forces family through the covenant. However, those organisations, particularly those in the public and charitable sectors, are hamstrung by the lack of financial support from the Government, and although we all support the need for more to be done, the Government must ensure that their strategy is properly funded.
Like the armed forces covenant, the strategy provides a vehicle to co-ordinate support for our veterans, and we welcome it. However, perhaps the Minister will answer a few key points. Has he, or any of his colleagues in the Department, had contact with the Treasury about the need properly to resource local government and the devolved Administrations, so that we can provide our veterans with the very best support? Will he join us in calling for an end to the deep cuts that we have seen over the past eight years?
As we have heard, the armed forces covenant provides important guarantees to our veterans, but there are long-standing concerns about patchy provision. What is the Department doing to ensure that the covenant’s promises become a reality for our veterans community and that the strategy does not simply represent more warm words?
Finally, we have heard from colleagues this afternoon, including the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and the hon. Members for Torbay and for Strangford, about the worrying issue of false legal claims being brought against members of our veterans community. It is now more than 15 months since the Conservatives pledged to get to grips with this issue in their 2017 election manifesto. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect to see some firm proposals?
Mr Ellwood
With the leave of the House, I have the pleasure of concluding this cross-party debate on supporting our armed forces, which has been frank and fair. It is pleasing to see the energy of Members on both sides of the House who want to continue our commitment to supporting our armed forces—those in uniform, their families and those who transit into civilian life and are again able to offer something back to society. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions today.
I would first like to pick up on some of the points raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). We are absolutely working to try to identify more funds. He will be aware of the pressures, but there are pockets of funding to be found. It is important that we have greater collaboration and co-ordination on the support that is required for veterans across all levels. We have a further opportunity to debate that next Thursday when we scrutinise the covenant, and I very much look forward to that.
I would like to touch on other contributions. The shadow Defence Secretary spoke about implementation and outcomes. I absolutely agree that it is important to look at them when considering the strategy, and I hope that will be a part of the consultation process. She also touched on an interesting aspect of this issue, which is apprenticeships. We have, I think, more apprenticeships than many other Government Department. We are very proud of that, and apprenticeships are a key contributor to what our armed forces can do.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) passed on a number of messages from Members who understandably could not be here today, including the Chair of the Defence Committee. It is also right that the whole House pays tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who did an incredible job as the Prime Minister’s envoy promoting and organising the world war one commemorations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and others also touched on lawfare issues with regard to what is happening to our veterans in Northern Ireland. He hinted at my personal view, which is on the record. This is a matter for the Armed Forces Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I have spoken to her about it recently, and we do need to advance the issue. I am aware that it has taken some time, but I know that she is aware of how serious it is and the awkwardness of those who have served and retired completely having to think back to what they did 40 to 50 years ago. We face a very strange situation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) spoke about Danish models and US models. I touched earlier on the fact that we are sharing best practice on supporting veterans with other nations. He talked about the role of the veterans champions in Scotland, and I am pleased to see that they are in place. I hope that the consultation will address the issue of co-ordination.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) for all the support she has given me personally during her time at the Ministry of Defence. It is clear that she is passionate about defence. I know she will continue, wherever she sits in the Chamber, to be an advocate for our armed forces. [Interruption.] I meant on the Front Bench or the Back Benches, rather than anywhere else across the Chamber. The work she did to support me, with her background and her understanding of the detail, was absolutely phenomenal. She raised a number of points about accountability. Perhaps we can have a discussion—we have raised this privately as well—about how we can advance some of the ideas that exist, which are well worth it.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) was very proud, quite rightly, to speak about the home of the Royal Navy. He made light of the fact that the veterans strategy makes for lighter reading—I hope—than the Brexit document. It is certainly shorter, and possibly might last longer as well—who knows? [Interruption.] The Whips Office did not write that one down.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the ID card, which is very important. Recognition of who our veterans are is critical. Veterans are allowed to keep their ID card—the MOD 90, as it is called—when they depart. We cut the corner off, and that gives them the identification. Veterans are now allowed to apply, and we are just getting the process in place. Drivers’ licences will also have a label on them to say whether someone is a veteran. The whole purpose is to allow businesses and organisations to celebrate the fact that they can offer discounts and support to those who are genuinely veterans. Those schemes exist already; we have the Defence Discount Service. I very much encourage all hon. Members to go on to the website and see a virtual map of the fantastic support and discounts that are available for our armed forces and veterans in their towns and constituencies. That is well worth understanding.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke about Care after Combat and the Career Transition Partnership, which I did not get to touch on. The partnership is absolutely critical. Its work is advancing, and it is doing an incredible job of making sure that we look after individuals and tailor programmes that take people through the necessary steps of crafting their CV and seeing where their strengths are. I underline the incredible and often unique skillsets that people pick up in the armed forces, but it is also fair to say that many businesses are not so familiar with how those skillsets can be used in new contexts. The Career Transition Partnership programme deals with exactly that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said that collaboration between veterans services needs greater co-ordination. I hope that we can continue to provide that, and it is part of what the veterans strategy is intended to achieve through consultation. That must be a critical objective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) gave a passionate speech about the importance of supporting our veterans. He also rightly articulated how our veterans become part of every aspect and every walk of society. In some cases people would not necessarily know that, because a veteran may have retired some time ago, but veterans do incredible jobs. It might simply be about going up to a veteran and saying, “Thank you for your service.” That gives me licence to promote the veterans breakfast clubs, which are a brilliant initiative. One a week is now opening up. They are simple operations. A café might just put a sign up, saying, “Veterans meet here at 8 o’clock on a Wednesday morning”, and then like-minded people turn up, with different experiences, but feeling valued—that is what it is all about—and being thanked for their service.
Finally, there was the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As I said, I want to do some more work with Northern Ireland specifically. He mentioned Operation Banner, and he knows that I served there. He raised many of the issues that we continue to need to work on. I am pleased to be able to go back there and see how, in the very specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, we can advance the covenant and our responsibility and duties to our brave veterans and service personnel there.
I end simply by saying that all this is about our armed forces. It is about our ability to remain in a position to say that we have the most professional armed forces in the world. We can only recruit the next generation of potential service personnel if they know that they will be looked after once they depart the armed forces. It is so important that we continue to have a strong military, given the dangers that we face. It is what we do and what other nations expect us to do—to have a credible, formidable and capable hard power. Ever fewer nations are stepping forward with the ability and desire to help to shape the world about us.
Ultimately, it is also in our economic interest to maintain a strong defence. Indeed, the first line of the strategic defence and security review states that our economic security is aligned with our defence and security. If we want a good, strong economy and prosperity, it is important for us to be able to defend our shipping lanes and support prosperity in other parts of the world, where it might be threatened.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
It is a very quick question. I am guessing that work on the next SDSR will probably start next year. When will we finally see the modernising defence programme?
Mr Ellwood
What is pertinent is that we are now moving towards the spending review, which will provide for the five-year cycle and show where our armed forces funding will go. However, that veers away from matters concerning veterans.
Let me reiterate my thanks for the contributions that have been made today, and for the cross-party support for our armed forces. I end by saying thank you to all who have served in our gallant and brave armed forces.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
What an excellent, good-tempered and positive debate—I do not mean to sound surprised!
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Veterans Strategy.
Home Education: draft guidance and the consultation
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition reads as follows:
The petition of residents of South Walsall,
Declare that the “Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002289]
Community Broadband Schemes
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to lead an Adjournment debate. I am delighted to do so, today of all days, and to raise an issue that is of prime importance to my constituents. For a rural constituency such as Stirling, the issue of broadband continues to be high on the list of priorities. I promised in my maiden speech that I would continue to raise the issue of connectivity in Stirling, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so today. I want to see all Stirling’s communities digitally enabled, connected by fibre or wireless, and I look forward to the day when I can get a mobile phone signal and a 4G service throughout my constituency. We are seeing some progress, but there is still some distance to go.
I want to talk about several broadband issues, including the difficulties that communities face when they set about improving their local broadband service. The first point that I will make—and it is an obvious point—is about what we mean when we use the word “fibre”, because it is important to understand what is meant by it. Fibre-optic cable provides high-speed data connectivity. We should be clear about the difference between “fibre” and full fibre. “Fibre” is not full fibre; full fibre to the premises is capable of gigabit speeds, and is a solution fit for the future.
Most users currently have a much slower, less reliable and limited hybrid service that depends on pre-internet copper infrastructure that was designed to carry phone calls and not data. It is just not honest advertising to describe a hybrid broadband connection as “superfast fibre broadband”. The Advertising Standards Authority should take a closer look at, and a more stringent approach to, the truthfulness of these claims, because they are plainly misleading.
Stephen Kerr
I hope that the Government will take the opportunity today to send a signal to the industry to get its house in order. Stirling’s broadband infrastructure is sub-optimal. It is inadequate and is not future-proof. It needs investment, and it needs intervention. While there is much in the way that BT has invested that is commendable, I cannot help but remain concerned that its investment plans remain based on commercial viability, rather than the requirements of delivering a truly national infrastructure network.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue to the House. Broadband is important to every one of us. If we represent a rural constituency, or a constituency with a mixture of urban and rural areas, the issue is very real. Does he agree that the 100,000 people in Northern Ireland who do not have access to superfast broadband have a right to the same service as people who live perhaps 10 miles away in the towns? More must be done to remove what he has referred to as the postcode lottery and to enable small businesses to operate to an acceptable standard in the rural communities where they are based.
Stephen Kerr
I completely agree. There is a need for investment to create a truly national all-inclusive infrastructure network.
BT’s lack of investment in solutions for exchange-only connections is an example of what I am talking about. This will continue until we see a real divergence between BT Openreach and BT itself. Openreach should be charged with the delivery of this national infrastructure system to allow Britain to become a truly digital nation and an economy fit for the future.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I am following my hon. Friend’s speech with great interest. He represents Stirling and we all think of Stirling as being the city of Stirling but it is a large rural constituency much like my constituency of Banff and Buchan, and we face similar issues, as we have discussed. We are often told that what we have to overcome are the technical, geographical and topographical issues, but these same premises have power cables and water lines going through the same topographical areas. It is actually a matter of cost.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend makes a good point and I will come on to address some of the issues he has kindly raised.
It amazes me, when I listen to the stories of community broadband groups in my constituency, that community broadband schemes ever happen at all. It was a pleasure to be present at the official launch of the Balquhidder community broadband in March this year. Balquhidder is the resting place of Rob Roy MacGregor, perhaps the glen’s most famous son; he was an outlaw, thief and folk hero. It is a scattered rural community in one of the most beautiful parts of Scotland, which can also now boast one of the fastest broadband connections in the UK.
That is down to David Johnston and Richard Harris, two of my constituents, who belong to Balquhidder and who are real heroes in my eyes. They have shown true determination and grit to get this project through. I have met Richard and David many times and their perseverance and tenacity, and indeed that of the whole community, in the face of immovable slow government and unhelpful bureaucracy is inspiring. It is an example of the power of the people. David Johnston met my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) when he was Minister of State at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in Stirling to discuss the project. I invite the Minister to come to Balquhidder to hear Richard and David’s story for herself, because although the project came to fruition this year it started way back in 2007. Their experience was extraordinary; it was of official meeting after official meeting and of a series of ongoing disappointments and setbacks. When they started out, BT and the Scottish Government both withheld critical information from them about where upgrades would be happening and which communities would benefit from public funding. That meant that community schemes the length and breadth of Scotland were held up by indecision and dither.
European state aid rules cover broadband investment. That means that, when an area benefits from state-funded infrastructure, it cannot benefit from a second investment. These European rules narrow the field of Government aid, and that has meant that community schemes have been on hold for years while BT and the Scottish Government try to work out behind the scenes what their priorities and plans are. To some extent, we are still waiting, thanks to the state of dither they are in.
It is worth noting that these rules are widely and regularly ignored by other EU countries. The interpretation around intervention in digital infrastructure is a particularly egregious example of where the rules are not only infuriating but actively detrimental to our economy. Imagine for a moment if the EU told us we could not build a road, install a water pipe or upgrade a railway. It is a basic job of Government to ensure that critical national infrastructure is provided, including broadband infrastructure in rural communities. However, because public money is being used, they must conform to an endless litany of rules and regulation.
A similarly convoluted story is told in the Trossachs area, in a beautiful rural community in Stirling around the village of Brig o’ Turk and the visually impressive Ben Venue. This community pursued a wireless technology solution. It explored interesting and innovative technologies, only to be let down by Stirling Council, which finally scrapped its community broadband group in favour of taking direct political control. That was a regrettable decision and many community groups have expressed their frustration to me about that decision.
Many other issues impact negatively on community broadband schemes. They include the difficulties communities have establishing wayleaves with public sector organisations, especially the Forestry Commission, which see such things as an opportunity for revenue and profiteering, and the withdrawal of the UK broadband voucher scheme, which happened with no notice. That was another regrettable decision that left some communities without a viable scheme to draw resources from and no clarity at the time on what would replace it. I know that a replacement scheme has since come in, but the capriciousness of Government remains a real issue for community schemes.
The plethora of Government schemes thrown at communities is also a real problem. Community Broadband Scotland failed miserably in its objective to fund and develop community schemes. Its dithering and ineptitude have caused many community groups to turn away from this path. Then there is the involvement of Digital Scotland Superfast Broadband, which has done some good work but lacks transparency about its priorities and plans. That leaves communities without a clear idea of how they can get involved in bringing broadband to their community. Broadband Delivery UK has been slow to act in Scotland and, as I have said, has left communities high and dry by abandoning schemes and being unclear about its approach to local full-fibre networks in rural Scotland.
I have previously said in this House that I am concerned about the use of the national productivity investment fund for broadband investments, as recently outlined in the Budget speech. That is of absolutely no help to my constituents, or to Scottish constituencies. It is money that will be Barnettised and passed to the Scottish Government and, on past performance, the Scottish Government will not invest the money but continue their dithering.
Of course, this is not the only budgetary issue that affects my constituents. In England, the UK Government have created legislative measures to provide 100% business rates relief on new fibre infrastructure. In Scotland, we still await any like-for-like measure from the Scottish Government. Balquhidder is saddled with this cost, as are community schemes the length and breadth of Scotland. Again, while the UK Government act, the Scottish Government dither. In Scotland, the Scottish Government posture, claiming credit for every good thing, while blaming the UK Government for everything else. How, I ask the Minister, has this been allowed to happen?
Can the Minister assure me that her Department is fully cognisant of its responsibilities for broadband provision in Scotland? My hope is that she is open to my gentle but forthright encouragement that the Department should be seen to be far more active in Scotland than it has been. Scottish taxpayers pay toward expenses in reserved areas such as this, just as English taxpayers do, and it is not right that the UK Government should be handing over this reserved area to the ineptitude of the Scottish Government and stepping away.
We have seen some improvement over the past year, and I pay tribute to Ministers in the Department for their approach, but I hope the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to commit to further action. The SNP has done with broadband what it has done with every issue: it has turned it into a grievance-inspired wedge so that it can talk about independence. That is as predictable as it is tedious, as the SNP does the same with health, education, transport, finance and agriculture —the list goes on.
Now we come to the real problem with broadband in Scotland. The Scottish Government have led communities down a garden path with promises of a shining city—a digital Jerusalem, if you will—and with their much-vaunted R100 project. The object of this project is to deliver by 2021 broadband services with a speed of more than 30 megabits per second to every household and business in Scotland. I commend to the Minister the Audit Scotland report from the spring of this year. It is bathed in the language we would expect of auditors, but it identified a clear problem with the R100 scheme, in that the timescale is unachievable given that the contract will not be awarded until next year—2019—and the objective is for 2021.
There is no adequate, long-term overall strategy. The Scottish Government’s objective is totally unrealistic. They are touting R100 as a catch-all solution to Scotland’s digital gap, as if saying the word often enough will get everyone to believe that. That approach belies the complexity and difficulty of getting the remaining properties connected to a superfast internet connection.
It is time for the Minister to reassess this issue and the UK Government’s whole approach to broadband delivery, especially in Scotland. Our vision should be for universal fibre-to-premise provision. We all know why that is necessary. We all know it will create jobs and allow people to live in remote and rural areas, such as those that make up most of my constituency. We all know that this is about educating the young, building viable businesses and providing remote healthcare into the future.
We should set an ambition of achieving a fully digitised, connected United Kingdom with a universal service of fibre to premise. That level of ambition will endow the British people with a technological edge. We should support communities to deliver that in every corner of these islands. It is time for the UK Government to really step up to the plate and to deliver for Scotland what the Scottish Government have consistently failed to deliver.
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) on securing this important debate on community broadband schemes, which are valuable mechanisms that allow people to group together and work with operators to deliver broadband in their local areas. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his passion, his commitment and his knowledge of the issue of rural broadband.
I agree about the importance of supporting rural broadband, given how absolutely essential a decent broadband speed is for individuals to lead their lives today. Broadband is as important as any other utility, and it is fundamental to the country’s growth, prosperity and competitiveness.
The Chancellor has set ambitious targets for full-fibre, rather than copper, roll-out, aiming for nationwide coverage by 2033 and to ensure that at least half the country is covered by 2025. Rural broadband is a particular priority for this Government, and we are focused on ensuring that the whole UK, including Scotland, benefits from this new strategy.
Everyone should be able to participate in our digital society to use Government services, to complete homework, to communicate with family and to work in the digital age. Of course, future opportunities and benefits from remote healthcare and learning, and technologies such as artificial intelligence and the internet of things, mean that 5G will have to be available to everyone in the future, no matter where they live or work. That will also depend on fibre roll-out. The Government are working hard to make sure that that happens.
We published the future telecoms infrastructure review in July 2018, setting out a national long-term strategy for digital connectivity to meet the Government’s full-fibre target. I agree with my hon. Friend on the definition of what we mean by a full-fibre connection. We do not mean a hybrid version; we mean fibre to the premises. I sympathise with what he said about what I agree is misleading advertising.
We recognise in our strategy that although commercial investment will deliver in most parts of the country, there is a case for Government support for investment in those areas where a commercial solution is highly unlikely to be found. We are committed to reaching those rural areas first, in what we call the outside-in approach. Those living in such areas—around 10% of the country—will be able to benefit from gigabit connectivity at the same pace as the rest of the country with public investment. Everyone should be able to benefit from world-class connectivity, and we are committed to nobody, and no part of the country, being left behind.
We have made good progress. The £1.7 billion Broadband Delivery UK superfast programme has provided access to superfast broadband for 4.75 million homes and businesses that would otherwise not have got such connectivity, and we have now reached 95% access to superfast broadband for the country as a whole. I recognise that that still means that 5% of the country, an above average amount of which is in rural areas, is still waiting for superfast connectivity.
Despite the success we have enjoyed, there is a tough challenge in remoter areas, including parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency. As he said in his eloquent speech, there is clearly more that our Government, and indeed the Scottish Government, can and should be doing. The Government have invested more than double the per-head funding for the superfast programme in Scotland compared with England, which has enabled Digital Scotland to provide superfast access to 93.7% of premises in Scotland.
As my hon. Friend said, we are investing £200 million in the rural gigabit connectivity programme that was announced in the Chancellor’s Budget a few weeks ago. The programme will bring full fibre to remote and rural areas, delivering improved connectivity that is reliable, gigabit-capable and future-proofed. It will mean that people living in rural areas will no longer have to put up with slower speeds than those in urban areas. That will provide the connectivity that businesses in rural areas need to survive and thrive, and the recent evaluation of the superfast programme showed a combined increase in turnover of £9 billion for local businesses that benefited from that roll-out.
The rural gigabit connectivity programme will trial models for local hubs in rural areas, starting with primary schools, alongside vouchers for funding full-fibre connectivity to tens of thousands of homes and businesses across the UK, which will benefit from a fibre spine that will enable gigabit-capable connections. The project will be delivered directly through providers, and that applies to the money that is being made available to Scotland as well. We will work with agencies, including the Scottish Government, to identify suitable schools and public buildings, but the money will go to providers, not the Scottish Government directly. The public buildings will likely be in areas that are sparsely populated and mostly rural, including the borderlands, as well as Cornwall and the Welsh valleys. Community broadband schemes can play a valuable part in improving connectivity in such rural areas, particularly by driving innovation and participation locally.
My hon. Friend detailed unsettling accounts of the bureaucratic difficulties that have been posed to community operations that seek to benefit from the community broadband project schemes. I congratulate his constituents David Johnston and Richard Harris on persevering against the odds to establish the Balquhidder community broadband project. I also congratulate them on winning the Scottish rural action transport and infrastructure award for 2018 for their fantastic efforts. This really should not be as difficult as my hon. Friend has detailed.
I have something encouraging to say. We constantly work, through the very good barrier-busting taskforce that we have established in the Department, to break down barriers in rural areas. We have worked to give providers greater rights to access land and a fairer price for exercising their wayleaves, and we are considering introducing legislation on reinforcing wayleaves’ rights of access and new builds, so we recognise what my hon. Friend has said and we are taking action. As a precursor to legislation, when parliamentary time permits, the barrier-busting taskforce has issued a lot of guidance to local bodies and providers on how to use the changes in rules that we have at least overseen in the past 18 months.
Community broadband schemes play a very valuable role, and we want to encourage community networks. We have published guidance on our website to help to support those who are interested in following this route. We do recognise the challenges and complexities, and we want to work with partners to ensure we are able to mitigate risks and challenges, particularly in places such as rural Scotland and the Welsh valleys. All that builds on our £290 million investment into the local full-fibre networks programme and the gigabit broadband voucher scheme. They have already benefited many rural areas and aim to catalyse the commercial roll-out of full-fibre broadband. Both programmes are UK-wide, and I am pleased to say that we have already seen a high level of engagement with the programmes in Scotland. The Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire area was selected as one of our market test areas for the gigabit broadband voucher scheme, and the highlands made a successful bid for £4.7 million in the first round of the challenge fund. These interventions will help further to reduce the footprint of the R100 programme. We welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to that programme, and officials are working closely to ensure that the R100 superfast ambitions can align with sand support our full-fibre ambitions.
As well as this vital work to deliver connectivity that is fit for the long term, we have also introduced the broadband universal service obligation, which will ensure that, by 2020, everyone across the UK has a clear, enforceable right to request high-speed broadband of at least 10 megabits per second. The USO is designed as a safety net and will at least ensure that no one has to wait to access Government services and to start to take part in our digital society, but the target of delivering nationwide full-fibre coverage by 2033 is challenging and will require industry, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to work together. The fact that we successfully hit our target of 95% superfast coverage is a huge credit to the hard work, skill and commitment of the Broadband Delivery UK team and all our partners, including Digital Scotland, and I thank them. I also commend my predecessors in my current role: my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), the former Secretary of State; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey).
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. I look forward to hearing more about the success of the community project he spoke about in the House today, and to building on that success and encouraging other community projects to take inspiration from his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Gibb
As the hon. Gentleman will know, outcomes at secondary level are mixed. In 2018, 40.4% of students in Plymouth entered the English baccalaureate, which is a core group of academic GCSEs—English, maths, at least two sciences, a language and a humanity. That figure outstrips the national average of 35.1% and is 1.5 percentage points higher than the figure for Plymouth in 2014.
[Official Report, 6 November 2018, Vol. 648, c. 490WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for School Standards:
An error has been identified in the speech I gave during the debate on the Plymouth Challenge for Schools.
The correct statement should have been:
Nick Gibb
As the hon. Gentleman will know, outcomes at secondary level are mixed. In 2018, 40.4% of students in Plymouth entered the English baccalaureate, which is a core group of academic GCSEs—English, maths, at least two sciences, a language and a humanity. That figure outstrips the national average of 38.5% and is 1.5 percentage points higher than the figure for Plymouth in 2014.
Agriculture Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 15th November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Bill 2017-19 View all Agriculture Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 November 2018 - (15 Nov 2018)
Agriculture Bill (Twelfth sitting)
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 26, page 20, line 36, at end insert—
‘( ) Regulations under this section containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment would require that the power to make regulations extending to Scotland can only be exercised with the consent of Scottish Ministers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 119, in clause 26, page 20, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section containing provisions extending to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland that would ordinarily be within the competence of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland and exercised by Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland may be made only with the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, as appropriate.
(1B) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made by the Secretary of State under—
(a) section 35 or 58 of the Scotland Act 1998 (as amended),
(b) section 82 or 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (as amended), or
(c) section 25 or 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (as amended).”
In order to preserve the principle that agriculture is a devolved matter, this amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State may only make regulations to secure compliance by the UK with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture with the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 68, in clause 26, page 20, line 44, leave out from “support” to end of line 2 on page 21.
This amendment would remove the role of the Secretary of State as final arbiter in dispute resolution.
Amendment 69, in clause 26, page 21, line 26, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment would remove the requirement to provide information to the Secretary of State.
Amendment 96, in clause 26, page 22, line 2, at end insert—
“(8A) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this clause shall affect the devolution of any power under—
(a) the Wales Act 1998, the Wales Act 2014 or the Wales Act 2017,
(b) the Scotland Act 1998 or the Scotland Act 2016, or
(c) the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
Deidre Brock
Like previous amendments, amendment 67 is about tidying up the Bill to respect the devolution settlements. It is about allowing Scottish Ministers to exercise powers that are already within their purview. Amendment 68 would remove what I describe as the overseer powers of the Secretary of State in respect of devolved powers by taking away the role of final arbiter and encouraging instead an environment in which consensus and agreement become the norm, rather than a veto.
Similarly, amendment 69 would remove a provision in the Bill that gives the Secretary of State power over the devolved Administrations that is not necessary. Although I can predict that the Minister will argue that there is a need for information to be provided to demonstrate compliance with World Trade Organisation rules, I contend that his assumption is not correct. Again, we return to the issue of respect for the devolved Administrations and the desirability of finding consensus and moving forward together. Removing subsection (6) would facilitate that and remove the impression that the Secretary of State wants to gather power to himself, rather than seeking agreement.
I have sympathy with the amendments suggested by other Opposition Members and the way in which they are trying to secure the future of the devolved settlements. I urge the Minister to consider how he can best do the same.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
We are all glad to be back in our places in Committee. This has been a fairly momentous day so far.
I wish to speak to amendment 119, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower wishes to speak to amendment 96. I do not want to delay the Committee too much; I just want to make some observations. I concur with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has just said, and she might want to look at our proposal, because it incorporates everything, including Wales and Northern Ireland.
The point about this line of amendments is one that we have discussed before. We are trying to make the point that, when carrying through the WTO arrangements, we have to ensure that we fully consult the different territorial Administrations—in this case, Scotland, but also Wales and Northern Ireland.
Let me explain why we have tabled amendment 119. As I have said before, I visited Northern Ireland and Ireland last week, and the situation is clear. I will not say that completely different agricultural systems are evolving, but there is some difference between them. We have to recognise that. It will be something that we need to be aware of whenever we talk to the WTO if and when we leave the European Union—it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has something to say on that, because clearly it is not a given.
We will have to apply to the WTO. Currently, we are part of the EU, so we will have to apply to the WTO in our own right. That will involve making sure that all four territorial Administrations are included in whatever appeal we make to the WTO, so in amendment 119 we are paying due regard to the devolution settlements. The situation is made more difficult, as I have said before, because there is no Administration in Belfast. We have to rely on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to take the appropriate measures on the say-so of the UK Government, but not necessarily to be completely dictated to by the UK Government.
I hope that the Minister can allay our fears that this will be a bit of a dictatorial measure if it is not amended. That is why we have tabled amendment 119. If the devolution settlements mean what they should—of course, agriculture, in this case, is a devolved matter—we have to be clear, however we subsequently work towards our own independent application to the WTO, that agriculture, which is a crucial part of any WTO arrangement, is included.
The WTO agreement is quite interesting. I hope that if I say a few things about it now, we will not have to do so again when debating clause stand part. Agriculture and horticulture are crucial parts of the WTO agreement. That means that we need to take cognisance of this, as clause 26 does, but in a way that gives due regard to the different territorial Administrations, as these amendments do.
The whole point of the WTO is to shut down agricultural loopholes,
“by binding and reducing tariffs, removing import bans or restrictions, and cutting subsidies that distort trade, both in domestic markets and on exports. As such, ‘Country Schedules’ of market access and national treatment commitments for products form an important legally binding component of WTO Membership.”
That is the specificity of the WTO agreement regarding agriculture. I could say more about how it affects agricultural trade, how it shapes agriculture policy, what the future direction of travel is and what it means for the United Kingdom, but I want to concentrate on the post-Brexit situation when we will be making this application. That is why these amendments are important. We have to ensure that all four countries are on the same page when we make that application. One of the underlying principles of the WTO is that members must not discriminate against one another. One would think that that immediately comes between the United Kingdom and other parties, but it would not be very helpful if we had discrimination within the United Kingdom, so it is quite important that we understand this in terms of the whole arrangement.
I raise that because the Minister rightly brought forward—at quite a late stage—the English votes for English laws arrangements, which lay down where the Bill affects England specifically. It is a pretty arcane document, which the Minister may wish to speak about. I will not spend hours trying to explain what the different bits mean, because I am not sure that I understand what the different bits mean. As we have tried to argue, however, this Bill has a major impact on England, much more than on the other Administrations. Wales is following England in due course. Scotland does not have a schedule. From my intimation, Northern Ireland is doing its own thing at the moment and will do so until it gets an Administration. That matters because we have to be sure that on the one hand England is not adversely affected by what is happening elsewhere, because that would look strange when we make the application to the WTO, and on the other hand that the other Administrations know that they must not discriminate against England, and they must be included in any negotiations, consultations and discussions on how we move this particular clause forward.
This clause is important. It is a part of the Bill that looks forward. It is not something we have done before, because the WTO did not exist when we entered the then European Community—the Common Market. This is a very different set of circumstances. I ask the Minister to allay some of our fears. First, will there be proper consultation, including with all the different Administrations, or with the appropriate actors if there is not an Administration, as in the case of Belfast? Secondly, to do a wee bit of pleading on behalf of England, will he make sure that England does not make all the ground running, or all the sacrifices, because we have not sorted out our own arrangements within the four countries?
The worst possible thing would be if the WTO sits on the application, leaving us in limbo land. None of us can pre-empt what will happen when we make that application. It may go through like night follows day, or it may be quite a difficult operation. Today is particularly apposite in regard to that, because we have a Bill, a discussion or a deal—whatever Members want to call it; I am not sure what form it will take when we get to the meaningful vote—that has really brought home to some Opposition Members, if not Government Members, how we have to nail this down carefully.
I hope that the Minister listens and understands why we feel so strongly about this, and why we need to get this right. I hope that he looks at these amendments—particularly amendment 119, in my name and that of other hon. Friends—because otherwise we could open up a very difficult scenario when we make that application.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 96, which seeks to ensure that nothing in clause 26 affects the devolution agreements in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is our responsibility to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards for agriculture in Wales and the other devolved nations. That is important, as the farming unions in Wales do not support the centralising approach that has been proposed. We cannot support any situation in which artificial and arbitrary limits can be placed on what devolved Governments can do.
I recently met my local farmers and our Assembly Member, Rebecca Evans. These farmers were young, dynamic and successful, working hard and planning how their farming businesses can be more profitable and resilient when they do not know what is around the corner. Not knowing what is happening in the light of Brexit makes that planning practically impossible. That is why they need the security and protection of such the amendment.
Those farmers have a great fear of the limbo that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud spoke about. We need to ensure that this is not a power grab. No express agriculture reservations should be carved out for DEFRA Ministers without their engaging first with Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. Any agreement must be made by common consent, not imposition.
This is a probing amendment. However, I look to the Minister to protect the devolution settlements, even more so in the current climate.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I am grateful that this morning’s sitting was suspended so that we could all take part—or attempt to—in the debate going on in the Chamber. I have only one point to make to my hon. Friend the Minister. I represent a border constituency. I have 35 miles of the English-Welsh border in my constituency, which I suspect is the largest, or close to the largest, certainly along the English-Welsh border. That area is represented almost entirely by agricultural holdings, many of which extend on both sides of the border.
I have been informed by NFU Shropshire, to which I pay tribute for digging out this information, that there were, in a recent year—I believe it was last year—a total of 575 basic payment scheme claimants, of which the Rural Payments Agency paid 244 for cross-border claims and the devolved Administrations of Wales and Scotland paid 331. This is not an insignificant group of farmers. There are a total of 83,500 in England, so it is a meaningful number. For those farmers, operating under two separate support regimes is already a challenge, but it is one that they have become used to under the common agricultural policy, which at least has a common framework. Here I have some sympathy with new clause 11, which we will come to today or in our next sitting. It seeks to provide some form of commonality, which we have touched on before in previous sittings.
I respect the fact that agriculture is a devolved matter, so this is a challenging thing to get right, but it is a problem for cross-border farms to operate in two systems. There is a real risk that, if the systems on different sides of the border diverge too much—in particular in the financial support given to farmers—it will lead to some distortion of trade and, at the worst end of the spectrum, some gaming to maximise the support available. I am sure that none of us wants to set up a system in which that is encouraged.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I intend to speak principally to amendment 96 and, with the leave of the Chair, to make some comment on the situation that the Government have found themselves in, which is highlighted by the clause.
Agriculture is devolved, and the agricultural methods and the needs of farmers and farming groups—I will mention timber, as I keep doing—such as the timber industry are different in the devolved Administrations, and they are dealt with differently, with different solutions. Any piece of legislation needs to reflect that individuality. I am disappointed with the Agriculture Bill. I understand the political reasons, but I am disappointed in the consequence that more work on the Bill was not done with Scotland, in particular, and England. Northern Ireland has a slightly unique situation. A lot of the issues could have been addressed by people sitting in a room having sensible discussions. Instead, we find ourselves with clause 26, which infringes on the devolution settlement. The second that that happens, extreme caution is needed.
The matter is made even more complicated by the number of farms that straddle the border, as the hon. Member for Ludlow pointed out. I cannot say that a huge amount of consideration has ever been given to those farms, and matters are mainly dealt with now through the good common sense of farmers saying to people, “Someone owes me the money and I need it.” The Bill might well be a great missed opportunity to address how we deal with cross-border farms.
The purpose of amendment 96, which was tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, was to highlight the risk to devolution. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments in connection with not only the current Government, but the difficulty of anticipating Secretaries of State to come. There is always a concern about new powers—not with the people who rightly say, “That’s not what we’re thinking”, but with the people who come later, who under the Bill would have the power to influence and cap the payments. That is not something that Scottish farmers want.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is a pleasure to be back, as always, and to provide some continuity on a turbulent day.
We are discussing an important issue. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and her party have raised it several times, and we have had correspondence about it from Minister Ewing. I will therefore address it in some detail. The first thing to say is that subsection (1) is clear:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing compliance by the United Kingdom with the Agreement on Agriculture.”
The whole clause must therefore be read in that context of “securing compliance” with the World Trade Organisation, which is a reserved matter—incontrovertibly reserved.
When we look at what happens now, therefore, the point is that we do not have a schedule with the WTO. The shadow Minister said that, and I will come on to it later. The European Union holds the EU’s schedule, including the so-called amber box—the aggregate measurement of support allowance for the entire EU. EU regulation requires that we, the UK Government, on behalf of the whole UK—these obligations apply to all the DAs as well—must submit to the European Union the information relevant to the policies. The European Union has the power to limit the amount of money that we spend that comes into the amber box, to ensure that the EU as a whole—this has to be managed for 28 member states—does not breach its amber box.
The key point is that when we leave the European Union, we will have our own WTO schedule. We will have our own amber box allocation, which will be something in the region of €3.5 billion—a significant sum of money. Here is a question: if each part of the UK decided to spend a billion on amber box, trade-distorting support, so that England did a billion, Wales did a billion, Scotland did a billion and Northern Ireland did a billion, and say, for the sake of argument, we had an amber box allocation of £3 billion, could we say that Scotland had stayed within its legal obligations?
So the key point is not the argument that Scotland, Wales and all the devolved Administrations must abide by international agreements. Of course they must; we rely on that all the time. The key question is how they can know that they are doing so, when we have a collective allocation of perhaps £3 billion for the entire UK, and we have to be able to allocate that somehow.
A number of hon. Members have said, “There has to be a role for the devolved Administrations in this.” Subsection (2)(a) states that there should be
“a process for the appropriate authorities to decide how different types of domestic support should be classified”.
A process will be set out in the regulations by which all the devolved Administrations will be able to discuss and agree that.
Where there is a lack of agreement, there is, in subsection (2)(b),
“a process for the resolution of disputes”.
There is already provision here through regulations for us to say, “If one part of the UK thinks it should be able to spend more on trade-distorting amber box support, there is a provision for dispute resolution.” Fundamentally it is reserved; it is now reserved with the EU and there are legal obligations on us all to provide the EU with information. There is no duty on the EU to consult if we want to breach it; they just tell us what the policy is and what our limits are. It is important that, as the holder of the WTO schedule, the UK Government at least have the power to collect the data and demonstrate compliance. That is all that this clause is about.
Martin Whitfield
Should the process for the resolution of dispute in subsection (2)(b) be followed and there is no resolution, it falls on to the Secretary of State. We have already had a discussion about his or her role with regard to England and the devolved nations. Are we not able, in 2018, to come up with a better system that more rightly reflects the full powers of the devolved nations and the fact that perhaps the Secretary of State should not be the final arbiter in this matter?
George Eustice
Given that it is a reserved competence, it is right that the Secretary of State should be the final arbiter, because somebody has to be. We do not have a federal system; we have a devolution settlement. It is different from a federal system of government and we have deliberately stopped short of a federal model with qualified majority voting.
Deidre Brock
The Minister talks about this being reserved, but we are quite clear that, as this concerns the implementation of international obligations, it is devolved and should be treated as such. I also remind the Minister that agriculture is considered to be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament because it is not a reserved matter under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. How does he address that and—I am sorry that this is rather a long intervention—the concerns of the National Farmers Union of Scotland that a future UK Secretary of State with these powers could have
“the ability to set limits on the amount of domestic support which could be targeted at specific measures that Scottish Ministers may seek to apply in Scotland to meet their objectives”?
George Eustice
Agriculture is devolved; we do not dispute that. That is why there are schedules for some parts of the UK that have asked us to do that, and it is open to other devolved Administrations, including Scotland, to bring forward their own domestic legislation on agriculture. However, demonstrating compliance with an international obligation through the WTO is a reserved matter. We do not dispute at all that agriculture is devolved—that premise runs right through the core of this Bill—but this is about demonstrating compliance with an international obligation.
Turning to the point that the hon. Member for East Lothian made about whether we could have a better way, as I said, we do not have a federal model. This system is one that we use a lot, through things such as the joint ministerial committees. Next month, hopefully, I will go the December council to discuss fisheries. When I do that, Ministers from all the devolved Administrations will join me in the trilateral with the EU presidency and the Commission. We work through our differences and work together on particular issues, but in the final analysis if there is a dispute about a priority or we have to make a judgment call about whether to support a final agreement, it is for the UK to make that final decision. That is right because it is an international negotiation.
Amendment 119 would make a similar provision on defending the devolved settlement. As I said, we are clear that the powers we outline in clause 26(1) are fully reserved—they do not encroach on any of the devolution settlement at all. Therefore, there is no need to restate some of these matters.
The hon. Member for Stroud asked what will happen when we lay our WTO schedule. We have already laid our proposals for that. We have been in a long discussion with the European Union. The plan is to split the WTO schedule both on tariff rate quotas and on the aggregate measurement of support—the so-called amber box. It has already been decided that it will be split using a method based on historical use or an appropriate allocation of the size of our agriculture. That schedule has already been logged with the WTO in draft form. We are currently going through what are called article 28 discussions with some countries about certain issues they have raised. The process is clear: the amber box—the AMS schedule—is split and, as I said, we get around £3.5 billion of that. We are already going through the process of laying that, with the agreement of the EU.
Dr Drew
I must dredge my memory to recall what the different coloured boxes are. What the Minister has said is fine, as long as there is agreement in the four territorial Administrations on what the Westminster Government intend to offer them. What happens if there is no agreement? Will they make representations, perhaps directly to the WTO, to say that the allocation is unfair?
George Eustice
It would not be their position to make a representation to the WTO, because it is a UK schedule. As I said, in clause 26(2) we set out a process for agreeing an allocation of the amber box—the aggregate measurement of support—and we set out a disputes process. On classification, there is also some confusion, and we will come on to bits of that later. A lot of the support, such as the coupled support that takes place in Scotland, is not even amber box; it currently comes under what is called blue box, which is a departure from the traffic light analogy.
In WTO rules there is a red box, which means that something is banned and cannot be used at all; a green box, which is for the agri-environment-type schemes; an amber box, which is for anything that might be trade-distorting; and, finally, blue box, for anything that may have some trade impact, but that is not the primary objective, and that does not distort in a large way. Scotland’s coupled support on beef and sheep currently fits within blue box, so it does not even use up any of the amber box allocation. The types of support that use up amber box allocations might be some of the intervention powers, particularly market intervention, which involve buying up surplus products and placing them in storage. That type of intervention is what we mean by amber box.
Some of the concerns that NFU Scotland has expressed are partly founded on a misconception about where its current coupled support schemes sit in the WTO schedules.
Deidre Brock
Is the Minister saying that voluntary coupled support schemes, which only Scotland takes up the option of implementing, count not as amber box subsidies but as blue box subsidies?
George Eustice
That is correct, yes. There is a bit of a misconception there.
Deidre Brock
I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but I will press the amendment to a vote. We feel strongly that the matter requires the Scottish Parliament’s consent. It concerns the implementation of international obligations that are devolved. Ultimately, the Minister has described a situation where there is not agreement, but an imposition of the Secretary of State’s views whenever there is a dispute—and with the best will in the world, such things happen. I would like to see a mature approach, which is how the Scottish Trade Minister described the Canadian solution for its trade dealings with its territories and provinces yesterday in the Scottish Affairs Committee. That is what we should strive for, rather than looking to change a system.
Clause 26 contains provisions that affect the Executive confidence of Scottish Ministers as regards the exercise of functions concerning agricultural support in Scotland. We acknowledge that for some elements of the WTO obligations, decisions need to be taken for the whole UK, but that does not suddenly convert this into a reserved policy area, which is what I think the clause does. Establishing the UK-wide arrangements for allocating the financial ceilings under the WTO agreement concerns devolved matters and certainly requires the Scottish Parliament’s consent. I repeat that, although such decisions could be taken on a UK-wide basis, that should be done only on the basis of consent, as per the allocation of competences implicit in the Scotland Act 1998. I will press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 121, in clause 26, page 21, line 25, after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) In setting limits for domestic support, the Secretary of State must not set limits for different classes of domestic support in relation to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.”
In order to preserve the principle that agriculture is a devolved matter, these amendments would ensure that the Secretary of State may not make regulations setting limits for different classes of domestic support in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Dr Drew
Amendment 120, in which we seek a more definite requirement of the Minister, follows on directly from the previous amendment. It effectively recognises, given that agriculture is a devolved matter—not a reserved one—in the devolution settlement, that the Secretary of State should not have the power to set different limits for different classes of domestic support.
Amendment 121 seeks to preserve the devolution settlement and respect the fact that agriculture is a devolved matter. It would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations that set different levels for different classes of domestic support for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—that is important. We are disappointed to have lost the previous vote, but we will continue to make the point that in order for the Bill not to be England only, it must take account of the other three territorial Administrations.
The Scottish Government have already suggested that a future Secretary of State could put a constraint on their funding, in particular for issues such as the less favoured area support scheme, which, it might be decided, the Scottish Government are using in an uncompetitive way. That has been picked up by the National Farmers Union Scotland, which sought legal opinion on the issue. It suggested that the wording in the Bill creates the theoretical possibility that a UK Secretary of State could, in the future, put regulations in place over and above its obligations as per article 6 of the WTO agreement on agriculture, which is causing consternation north of the border. Without asking the Minister for a legal opinion, I would be interested—and it is important—at least to get the Minister’s understanding, given the consternation already being caused north of the border, of how, if we do not accept the amendments, the possible imposition could occur.
If the provision goes through as currently drafted, Scottish Ministers will not have the freedom to apply domestic support as they see fit, particularly given that, as the Minister has said, the United Kingdom is the competent authority to apply to the WTO. Presumably, once the matter has been placed before the WTO, the amounts that each Administration could spend on its agriculture would be laid down—not just identified but laid down as tablets of stone. It would be difficult to change.
It would be interesting to know how things stand under the devolution settlement in that regard. If and when we get to Brexit, and when the WTO application with its agricultural implications is put in, the debate about the effect on the devolution settlement will be interesting. We have grave fears about the UK Secretary of State being given the power to decide what moneys will be spent and how. It could be decided that certain measures were unfair to England or to another territorial area.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland believes that a dangerous precedent would be set, and that it would be different from what was understood under the devolution settlement; it would compromise it, and put financial ceilings on the money that could be allocated to agriculture. That is why we have tabled the amendment, and why we consider the issue to be an important one, which the Minister must address on behalf of the Government.
Clearly, there could be further investigation on Report, in relation to the amendment. Perhaps the issue is one of those where we might—I shall say it quietly—look for a statutory instrument to clarify what happens. However, something has to be done to give the other territorial Administrations security, and certainty that they will not face the imposition I have set out. The Minister talked about the different boxes and gave a good history lesson on what they all mean, but what I am talking about matters, because the flexibility of each Administration will be constrained by the application to the WTO and the way the Government interpret that.
We happen to agree with the National Farmers Union of Scotland that what is proposed would undermine the devolution settlement, which is why I am happy to be speaking to amendments 120 and 121. We would have dealt with the matter more comprehensively in the form of new clause 13 but sadly, for reasons known to the powers that be, it was not selected and we have had to table the amendments. I accept that the change under the amendments would be quite minor.
We should like a wider debate, perhaps, on more of a wholesale improvement to the Bill, to go through how we would approach the question. That matters because we are not many months away from the Brexit settlement; if it is at the end of March—and who knows the day?—we will have to be quick. The Minister said we have already made an application, but we shall have to substantiate the allocation quickly.
I hope that the Minister will consider the issue and agree that we have a point. I know that he cannot give a legal response, but perhaps he will at least give us some assurance that he has listened and can act on the matter in view of the effect that there might otherwise be on the three other territorial Administrations and, indeed, England, which could be suitably constrained if we had some form of devolution in England—perhaps one day we shall. We can but dream. The reality is that we need to know such things before the Bill passes into statute.
George Eustice
These are interesting amendments. It is more around the interpretation of the clause, and I want to reassure hon. Members that there is not some secret plan to start setting limits where they are not appropriate. The real purpose of subsection (4)(b) is to enable us to set limits in future: it is really a future-proofing clause. If at some point in the future the WTO placed limits on blue box or green box, on which there are no limits now, it would enable us to set limits for those other classes in that future scenario.
To be clear about the definitions here, when we talk about classes of support, we do not mean a particular type of coupled payment or a severely disadvantaged payment. We actually mean blue box, amber box or green box. We mean classes of support in the context of the WTO definitions of classes of support. We are not in the business of saying people cannot have that headage payment or this headage payment. We are simply saying that we could set limits on those other classes should, at a future date, the WTO rules evolve to the point that they have those.
I hope I have reassured the Committee that there is nothing beyond that. To be clear, if we were to set a limit on the use of blue box at the moment, using the power in subsection (4)(b), that would be illegal, because it would breach subsection (1), which is absolutely clear on the purpose. The purpose is for
“securing compliance…with the Agreement on Agriculture.”
If there is no limit on blue box spending in the agreement on agriculture—and there is not at the moment—then there would be no limit on the amount of blue box that a devolved Administration could spend and there would be no way, even using that clause, for the UK Government to place such an arbitrary limit that went above and beyond the agreement on agriculture. I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Stroud of our intention. This is largely a technical, future-proofing clause to take account of the fact that there may be an evolution in WTO rules.
As the hon. Gentleman was talking, I looked at subsection (9) to see whether there was clarity about the definition. Before Report, I will look at whether it might be appropriate in that subsection, which is around definitions, to be clearer about what we mean by “class of support”. We define what “domestic support” means, but “class of support” could be misinterpreted. I will talk to our lawyers and parliamentary counsel on that technical matter to see whether there is a need for that clarity to be given and come back to the House on that matter on Report. I hope, having made that offer, the hon. Gentleman might not press these two amendments.
Dr Drew
I suppose half a loaf is better than none, given that we are talking about food. I welcome that latter compromise. It is good to know that the Government are willing to compromise where we think an improvement could be made.
I am a wee bit worried about the way that the devolution settlements are going to be somewhat altered, in terms of the way in which the WTO application will need to be visited quite carefully. Who can tell what the future will bring in terms of the box arrangements, whether it is the blue, amber, green or red box? The problem with it is that, in a sense, we can only pass legislation today but the Minister is trying to pre-empt what might happen in the future. I am worried about this and I urge him, having offered us half a loaf, at least to look at whether we can define this in terms of what the devolution settlements say. I think there is the possibility, as the NFUS says, of some future dispute if the territorial Administrations decide on different levels of spending on their agriculture. Clearly, they cannot be outwith any WTO arrangement, because they will be subject to the penalty clauses that the WTO brings forward in due course. However, we know that takes years, so a difficult situation may arise whereby we have tension between the different Administrations with responsibility for agriculture yet we are trying to devise a settlement that fixes amounts for them all.
I will not press amendments 120 or 121 to a vote. We think we have got somewhere on amendment 121—the Minister will look at subsection (9) to see whether classes of support can be better defined, and we look forward to seeing the outcome of that. However, I urge him to look at how the arrangement will work and at least take cognisance of the legal judgment that the NFUS received, because this is an area of possible conflict. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 69, in clause 26, page 21, line 26, leave out subsection (6).—(Deidre Brock.)
This amendment would remove the requirement to provide information to the Secretary of State.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
George Eustice
We have discussed this issue in detail, so I do not intend to say much. Clause 26 is all about the UK Government’s being able to fulfil our obligations under international law—to demonstrate compliance with WTO rules and demonstrate that we abide by the limits set out in our WTO schedule. I shall not repeat our detailed debate on the amendments.
Dr Drew
I do not intend to delay the Committee for long, either, but the clause is important and detailed. I accept that the Minister is prepared to make improvements to subsection (9), which we welcome.
Again, the clause in a sense pre-empts what may happen after March. It is important that we know what elephant traps there may be if we do not get this right. We have concentrated on the impact on the territorial Administrations, but there is a wider impact. The Minister may choose to intervene to give us some idea of the timescale of the WTO application. Understandably, the Government have already put in a draft schedule, but it would be interesting to know for what period we will be without any protection. We will be outside the EU, although we will be in a transitionary period—presumably that transitionary arrangement will cover us. It would be interesting to know whether we have got to have the WTO application accepted when the transitional arrangement with the EU comes to an end. The Minister might care to intervene on me to tell me that, because I personally do not know—[Interruption.] Or not, as the case may be. I will leave that as a question for some future date.
It is important that we know what that arrangement is, because we could be outwith any protection. Food is a pretty important area, and all sorts of substandard food could come in—dare I say it?—legally, so we want protection. The Minister has heard that and perhaps needs to think about it a bit. We need to know the timescales; otherwise we will return to this issue on Report with an amendment to ask the Government to explain what the timescales could be, and what happens if we do not get them right.
George Eustice
As I said earlier, we have already got an agreement with the EU—we have been working with it for well over 12 months—on splitting the EU schedule. There will be a UK schedule setting out all our agricultural tariff rate quotas—TRQs—and our share of the amber box. That has already been laid with the WTO and is now going through what is called an article 28 process, in which there are technical-level discussions with other members of the WTO who might have questions. Once it is laid, it is laid, and it does not have to be certified to take effect. Whether or not it is certified and agreed by every member of the WTO is largely inconsequential. It is the schedule that we will work to from the end of March 2019 in the event of a no-deal Brexit. If there is an agreement and an implementation period, we would continue to work within the EU framework.
George Eustice
Yes, of course. The WTO is not a supranational institution like the EU, in which there are infraction proceedings; it is a dispute-resolution process, and is often used by certain countries to try to secure advantages. Typically, when the EU has an accession country coming in—when we have had EU enlargements—the amended schedule that it tables can sit unagreed and uncertified for about a decade, but it is still worked to. The WTO works at an even slower pace than the European Union, but because it is a looser framework—effectively, a dispute-resolution process—there is plenty of latitude for us to lay our schedule and work towards it for as many years as it takes before people finally sign it off and agree it.
Dr Drew
I thank the Minister for that; that is very useful. It is just a strange world if we have already had a complaint before we have joined. They are getting their retaliation in first. These issues matter. Sheep will be an important variable if we leave the EU the way we could do, because we would be subject to the end of New Zealand’s quota arrangement. Australia, in particular, will want to send a lot more sheep into this country, because it thinks it can do it cheaper and better. That has a huge implication for Wales and Northern Ireland, although perhaps less so for Scotland. These issues matter, and we need to know what the full implications are.
I do not have anything more to add, other than—dare I say it?—caveat emptor. We need to be aware that what is potentially coming is quite complicated, and that we have got to keep lots of balls in the air, particularly for the devolved Administrations, which could lose out if we are not careful in how we draft the completed application to the WTO.
Deidre Brock
We are not happy with the clause. It gives the Secretary of State powers over the devolved Administrations that are not necessary or appropriate. It allows him to be the final arbiter in future disputes about the nature of domestic support. As I have said before, this is about respect for the devolved Administrations, which I find sadly lacking in this clause. I urge the Minister to revisit it, and we will be re-examining it on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Wales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
I do not think we need to spend too long on this clause, which is a single sentence that is a pointer to schedule 3. We have included all the provisions for Wales in schedule 3, at the request of the Welsh Government. There are a number of Government amendments to schedule 3, which I will talk to in more detail in a moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Provision relating to Wales
George Eustice
I beg to move amendment 19, in schedule 3, page 33, line 21, at end insert “(unless section 29(4A) applies)”.
See the Explanatory Statement for Amendment 2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 20, 21, 92, 110 and 22 to 27.
George Eustice
I can be relatively quick on this group of Government amendments, which are all a consequence of other, largely technical, amendments that we made to earlier parts of the Bill. We have discussed them with the Welsh Government, and they have confirmed that they would like to make the same amendments in their schedule, since often they are to fix technical issues.
Broadly speaking, amendments 19, 22, 23, 26 and 27 are linked to our original amendment 14, which effectively corrected the issue about when it is appropriate to use the negative resolution or the affirmative resolution procedure. The amendments make technical corrections to make sure that we do not end up requiring the wrong type of procedure.
Amendment 20 is similar to an amendment that we introduced for England. It is a simple one-year fix that enables a national ceiling to be set, so that the modulation on the legacy schemes can be done. Wales currently modulates at a rate of 15%, compared with 12% in England, so it is important for them to have the power to be able to do that modulation in that particular year.
Amendment 21 is about giving the Welsh Government the powers that they need, as we introduced for England, to set a financial ceiling to be able to continue to make direct payments after we leave the European Union. As I think I explained when we had a discussion in the context of Scotland, in the absence of a paragraph of this nature, the ability to make basic payment scheme payments falls away from 2020.
Amendment 92 is a technical amendment clarifying the difference between a de-linked payment and a direct payment to ensure that there is a proper reference point for the de-linked payment. Amendments 24, 25 and 110 are largely corrections. I did not explain this when we covered it earlier, but amendment 25 will change the words “market decisions” to “market conditions”. That was a simple typo or a rogue spell-check interruption in the drafting process.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Amendments made: 20, in schedule 3, page 33, line 21, at end insert—
“6A (1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision for and in connection with reducing the national and net direct payments ceilings for Wales that would otherwise apply in 2020 by up to 15%.
(2) For this purpose—
the “national direct payments ceiling for Wales” is the sum representing the share allocated to Wales of the amount specified for the United Kingdom in Annex II of the Direct Payments Regulation (table of national ceilings);
the “net direct payments ceiling for Wales” is the sum representing the share allocated to Wales of the amount specified for the United Kingdom in Annex III of the Direct Payments Regulation (table of net ceilings).
(3) Regulations under this paragraph cannot be made after the end of 2020.
(4) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”.
This amendment makes the same provision for Wales as that made by NC2 for England.
Amendment 21, in schedule 3, page 33, line 21, at end insert—
“6B (1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations modify legislation governing the basic payment scheme to make provision for and in connection with securing that the basic payment scheme continues to operate in relation to Wales for one or more years beyond 2020 (subject to any provision made under paragraph 7).
(2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) includes power to provide for the direct payments ceiling for Wales for any relevant year to be determined, in a specified manner, by the Welsh Ministers.
(3) Provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) must require a determination in respect of a relevant year to be published as soon as practicable after it has been made, and
(b) may confer functions on any person in connection with, or with the making of, a determination in respect of a relevant year.
(4) In this paragraph—
“the direct payments ceiling for Wales” is the national ceiling of the kind referred to in Article 6 of the Direct Payments Regulation that is applicable in relation to Wales for any relevant year;
“relevant year” means a year within the agricultural transition period for Wales in respect of which direct payments under the basic payment scheme fall to be made in relation to Wales;
“specified” means specified in regulations under this paragraph.
(5) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”.
This amendment makes the same provision for Wales as that made by NC3 for England.
Amendment 92, in schedule 3, page 33, line 28, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) making delinked payments in relation to Wales with respect to the whole or part of that period (in place of direct payments under the basic payment scheme in relation to Wales).”.
This amendment makes the same provision for Wales as that made by Amendment 91 for England.
Amendment 110, in schedule 3, page 34, line 29, leave out first “above” and insert
“(whether before or after the start of the agricultural transition period for Wales)”.
This amendment brings the text of paragraph 7(8) of Schedule 3 into line with that for the equivalent provision in relation to England.
Amendment 22, in schedule 3, page 35, line 22, at end insert “(unless section 29(4A) applies)”.
See the Explanatory Statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 23, in schedule 3, page 36, line 14, at end insert “(unless section 29 (4A) applies)”.
See the Explanatory Statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 24, in schedule 3, page 40, line 32, leave out “may”.
This amendment makes clear that paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 is intended to set out the only circumstances in which the Welsh Ministers may make a declaration stating that there are exceptional market conditions. The amendment brings the provision for Wales into line with that for England.
Amendment 25, in schedule 3, page 41, line 5, leave out “decisions” and insert “conditions”.
This amendment corrects the same error as that corrected by Amendment 6.
Amendment 26, in schedule 3, page 42, line 31, at end insert “(unless section 29(4A) applies)”.
See the Explanatory Statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 27, in schedule 3, page 44, line 33, at end insert “(unless section 29(4A) applies)”.—(George Eustice.)
See the Explanatory Statement for Amendment 2.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
This is an important schedule to the Bill. We have been asked to include it by the Welsh Government, who are keen to ensure that they have the right powers in place to implement their own domestic policy. They have been clear that, in the medium to longer term, they would introduce new legislation through the Welsh Assembly to implement future policy. However, these powers, which are similar to those already outlined in the Bill, will enable them to continue in the meantime to make payments under the legacy basic payment scheme and also to start designing their new policy.
It is important to note that, just because the Welsh Government have taken broadly the same powers as England through the schedule—almost a carbon copy of those which the Bill has for England—it does not mean that their policies will remain identical. Indeed, the policies may well diverge quite considerably, because these are enabling powers in an enabling Bill that will give the Welsh Government the power to design their own schemes that will work for their own topography and the Welsh farming industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 28
Northern Ireland
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
As with clause 27, we need not spend too long considering this clause. It is another single-line clause and it gives effect to schedule 4, which relates to Northern Ireland and has been requested by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the environment Department of the Northern Ireland Administration.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Provision relating to Northern Ireland
George Eustice
I beg to move amendment 28, in schedule 4, page 44, line 39, leave out “paragraph 2” and insert “paragraphs 2 to 2C”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 36 to 38 which insert three new paragraphs into Part 1 of Schedule 4. The amendment provides that expressions explained or defined in paragraph 1 also apply in relation to those new paragraphs.
George Eustice
This set of amendments, like previous ones, is largely about correcting drafting errors or making technical changes to reflect issues that we identified throughout the passage of the main part of the Bill.
Amendments 29 and 30 provide DAERA with powers to modify voluntary redistributive payments and areas of natural constraint payments, neither of which are currently made in Northern Ireland. Amendments 31, 32 and 38 define retained direct EU legislation related to the coupled support scheme and provide the option to continue and simplify or improve that scheme. That scheme is also not currently used in Northern Ireland, but the amendments ensure that a future Minister is not restricted on their choice of policy scheme.
Amendment 35 makes it clear that changes to basic payments—to improve or simplify—can include the continuation of taking steps towards reaching a flat rate of payment. Amendment 37 ensures that DAERA can continue direct payments after 2020 by enabling it to set ceilings after that scheme year. Amendment 36 allows DAERA to reduce the direct payments ceiling by up to 15% for Northern Ireland in 2020. Northern Ireland at the moment does not modulate at all between pillars 1 and 2.
All those amendments have been requested by DAERA because many of the policies are not ones that are used now—they are options in the CAP that have not been taken up under the Northern Ireland schemes. DAERA believes the powers to be permissive and that it is important for it to retain the option should a new Northern Ireland Administration be formed and decide that they want to take up those options. This is a sensible set of amendments to ensure that a future Administration in Northern Ireland will have the powers to pursue their policy choices.
Dr Drew
I will speak to the amendments, although my comments will relate more directly to schedule 4 generally. I might as well put the two together.
I do not have any particular problems with the Government amendments as such. They are just tidying-up amendments. However, as I have on previous occasions, I will raise at least an amber flag—we are still on boxes—about the situation in Northern Ireland. There are two aspects. First, Northern Ireland has no Administration, so the schedule has been agreed not with elected politicians but with DAERA itself—the officials. That might be because we have to face up to the fact that there is no Administration, but that poses the question of what will happen if and when there is an Administration. They will inevitably want to revisit the schedule, because they will want some political input.
Secondly, Northern Ireland is clearly different. This morning, people have spent rather a long time trying to prove the point that Northern Ireland is different—it has our one land border with an EU country, the Republic. Therefore, whatever we do in the Agriculture Bill is contingent on what that relationship entails. I have talked before about Baileys liqueur. The milk used in it crosses the border seven times. Joe Healy, the president of the Irish Farmers’ Association, kindly told me that interesting fact—it is good for pub quizzes. There are all manner of other movements, such as southern pigs being slaughtered in northern abattoirs, or northern lambs being slaughtered and sold in the south. Such movements of animals and goods are integral to the way in which trade across the whole of that island has evolved since the Good Friday peace agreement, and given that we are both members of the EU and so have not had any borders.
I know—as the Minister will no doubt confirm—that there are absolutely no plans at all to put in a physical border. That is the reality of the situation. If there are to be such plans, they will have to made very quickly, because DAERA has confirmed that it has no plans to put in a physical border. The best that it could come up with at this short notice is more inspections, wherever they might take place.
I am asking the Minister what clarity there is about passing a schedule that has no political input because, sadly, there is no Administration in Belfast. What are the safeguards regarding whatever comes out of today’s EU agreement? Many of us would actually describe it as a non-agreement, because it is highly unlikely that this House will agree to the Prime Minister’s proposals—but that is speculation and for the future. More particularly, we must look at how to address the possibility of no agreement or an agreement that threatens the current freedom of movement between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
George Eustice
I begin by paying tribute to the officials in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, which has some talented people working on its agriculture team. No one doubts that they face a difficult challenge. With all the changes we are going through as a country, they do not have an elected, political Administration in place. They are very conscious of that and, for that reason, they have been cautious in the powers they seek under this schedule.
It is also important to note that DAERA has not just sat back and decided that it can do nothing. In fact, DAERA produced the first report from any UK Administration setting out their broad thoughts on future policy. That report was drafted by stakeholders, bringing together the farming industry and others. DAERA shared a document with us that reflected the views that came from the farming industry, environmental non-governmental organisations and others about what the future direction might be. Even in the absence of that political Administration, it fed into this process with a paper that set out the views of stakeholders, to ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland farmers and agriculture were not overlooked.
Amendment 37 will ensure that DAERA is able to set ceilings to continue to make basic payment scheme payments after 2020. It is important to recognise how it has approached this. DAERA asked us to give it the powers to continue to make the basic payment scheme and existing legacy pillar 2 schemes and to take a power to modify those. It has not decided how it might use that power to modify, but if a new Administration came in who wanted to modify that, it has been clear that that future Administration should have that power. Crucially, it was clear that DAERA did not feel it appropriate for an unelected Administration and officials trying to steady the ship during this challenging period to take the powers outlined in clause 1, because those powers are clear about a direction of travel and a switch to a payment for public goods, rather than the existing direct payment scheme. Therefore, it thought it would be inappropriate to take such a power without there being an elected Administration.
It is equally important to note that DAERA chose not to take the powers to have a transition period and phase out direct payments, for the reasonable reason that that would be a political decision that a future Administration must take. Its job, as a DAERA administration without a political Administration, is to ensure that it can provide continuity and that whatever is done is future-proofed, so that a future Administration may take over.
In essence, DAERA intends to carry on with the scheme that we have now and not make any changes at all, and to await a future political Administration, who may then take decisions about the future direction of Northern Ireland policy. I believe that officials in DAERA behaved impeccably to protect the interests of Northern Ireland farmers, to ensure that they continue to make payments, that officials have the power to set ceilings and also to future-proof the policy, so that there are some initial powers to assist.
Deidre Brock
I am curious about how the accounts for Northern Ireland agricultural funding are signed off in the absence of Ministers. Is that included in the schedule or an aspect of it? What sort of public accountability will there be?
George Eustice
We already have an organisation called the UK co-ordinating body, which is hosted by the Rural Payments Agency and works in collaboration with all the devolved Administrations on auditing and accounting issues under those EU schemes. We envisage that a body such as that would continue anyway, but there are already established principles in place within the UK civil service. It is important to recognise that, while we have different devolved Administrations, we have one civil service for the entire UK; civil servants working in the Scottish Government are as likely to get a transfer to work in a Whitehall Department as anywhere else. We have a single civil service, which is important to give some cohesion to our system.
I conclude by saying that this is an important schedule to include. In my view, DAERA has taken the correct approach of ensuring that it can continue to make payments to its farmers, while putting some powers in place for a future Administration. The answer to the shadow Minister’s question is that, when there is another Administration, if they have bolder ambitions to change and transform their policy in the way we have outlined in clause 1 and that Wales has chosen to adopt on an interim basis, it will be open to them to introduce legislation through the Northern Ireland Assembly to give effect to their specific proposals.
Dr Drew
The Minister has been very candid there in saying that, effectively, Northern Ireland stays as it is at the moment. That would be fine if we knew an Administration were coming in before the transition arrangements for our own relationship with the EU come to an end, but potentially—in the worst-case scenario—there will be no Administration in Belfast for a considerable period. That would mean the agricultural system staying in place for as long as there was no Administration. We have, as I have always feared, an increasing focus on England as the basis of this Bill. Scotland does not have a schedule and will do its own thing; Wales will follow England, but may choose to do so in quite a slow manner; and Northern Ireland will stay the same until politicians decide to pick up the mantle again.
While the direction of travel toward environmental support is quite right, it is a bit worrying as we have a single market within the United Kingdom: if we are subsidising sheep farmers in Northern Ireland by direct payments, sheep farmers in Cumbria, who will not be receiving that support, will begin to worry. I know the argument is that they can pick up support.
George Eustice
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but he has to understand a number of points here. First, the basic payment scheme single farm payment is already de-linked from production. Nobody has to produce anything on the land to qualify for that payment. It is a de-linked payment—a subsidy for owning or controlling land.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that in our provisions for England we have set out a transition period that will run for seven years and it is our intention gradually to phase down the direct payments. That will not be an overnight change, but a gradual divergence. I hope that at some point within that seven-year transition period we will at least see a new Administration in Northern Ireland, because in the absence of such an Administration we will have many more problems besides the fact that they have not been able to update their agricultural policy.
Finally, in the context of Northern Ireland specifically, it might well be the case that a future Administration choose to keep a closer eye than will other parts of the UK on future policy in the Republic of Ireland through the common agricultural policy, for the very reasons the hon. Gentleman pointed out: Northern Ireland shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland and there is a lot of transfer of goods across that border. Therefore, ensuring that there is some recognition of the type of farm support in the Irish Republic is more important for farmers in Northern Ireland than for those in other parts of the UK.
Dr Drew
Again, I find that very instructive, and I do not disagree with anything the Minister says, but this is more and more a curate’s egg. The problem is that we are dependent upon an Administration being in place—at some time—who will follow where we are going in England; otherwise, there will be issues of conflict.
The Minister is right that payment is de-linked, but not to the extent that farmers in Northern Ireland will receive basic payments for whatever we choose, or whatever they choose, or whatever DAERA chooses, or whether that is—in a sense—a form of direct rule. We could impose them, but that would go back to the fact that, effectively, there was an imposition on a part of the United Kingdom by the UK Government into a territorial Administration. It opens up a whole can of worms in that respect.
George Eustice
I do not have a great deal more to add. I think that I have explained the rationale for DAERA requesting the powers it has requested, and this has been an interesting debate on that matter. Obviously, in the long term, the solution is to get a political Administration back up and running in Northern Ireland, but sadly that is not an issue we can address through consideration of the Bill.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendments made: 29, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(a) a basic payment for farmers (see Chapter 1 of Title III),”
This amendment and Amendment 30 make clear that references in paragraphs 2 to 2B of Schedule 4 to the “basic payment scheme” include arrangements (if any) for direct payments to include a voluntary redistributive payment or payment for areas with natural constraints. Neither of these payments is currently made in Northern Ireland, but the amendments mean that if they are made in future years, the power to make provision for the purpose of simplifying or improving the operation of the basic payment scheme could include provision about these payments.
Amendment 30, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 8, at end insert—
( ) if a decision to make such payments is taken, a redistributive payment (see Chapter 2 of Title III), and
( ) if provision under paragraph 2(1)(b) is made, a payment for areas with natural constraints.”
See the Explanatory Statement for Amendment 29.
Amendment 31, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 8, at end insert—
‘( ) The “coupled support scheme” is the voluntary coupled support scheme under the Direct Payments Regulation as the Regulation applies in relation to Northern Ireland (see Chapter 1 of Title IV of the Regulation).”
This amendment defines “coupled support scheme” which is the subject of Amendment 38.
Amendment 32, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 18, at end insert—
‘( ) The “legislation governing the coupled support scheme” is—
(a) the following retained direct EU legislation—
(i) the Direct Payments Regulation so far as relating to the coupled support scheme,
(ii) any Council Delegated Regulation, or Commission Delegated Regulation, made under the Direct Payments Regulation and so far as relating to the coupled support scheme,
(iii) any other retained direct EU legislation which relates to the coupled support scheme, and
(b) any subordinate legislation relating to retained direct EU legislation falling within paragraph (a).”
This amendment defines “legislation governing the coupled support scheme” which is the subject of Amendment 38.
Amendment 33, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (4)
This amendment removes the definition of “direct payment” because it is not needed: the only references to direct payments in paragraphs 2 to 2B refer to them as being payments under the basic payment scheme.
Amendment 34, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 32, leave out “II” and insert “III”
This amendment corrects a cross reference to the Direct Payments Regulation.
Amendment 35, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 40, at end insert
“(b) ensuring all payment entitlements, or all payment entitlements within a region, have, or over a period of time reach or move towards, a uniform unit value.
In paragraph (b) the reference to “payment entitlements” has the same meaning as in the legislation governing the basic payment scheme.”
This amendment makes clear that changes to the basic payment scheme made in order to improve or simplify the scheme can include making changes that will continue the taking of steps towards reaching a flat rate of payment.
Amendment 36, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 42, at end insert—
2A (1) DAERA may by regulations make provision for and in connection with reducing the national and net direct payments ceilings for Northern Ireland that would otherwise apply in 2020 by up to 15%.
(2) For this purpose—
the “national direct payments ceiling for Northern Ireland” is the sum representing the share allocated to Northern Ireland of the amount specified for the United Kingdom in Annex II of the Direct Payments Regulation (table of national ceilings);
the “net direct payments ceiling for Northern Ireland” is the sum representing the share allocated to Northern Ireland of the amount specified for the United Kingdom in Annex III of the Direct Payments Regulation (table of net ceilings).
(3) Regulations under this paragraph cannot be made after the end of 2020.
(4) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
The new paragraph 2A inserted by this amendment makes the equivalent provision for Northern Ireland as that made by NC2 for England.
Amendment 37, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 42, at end insert—
2B (1) DAERA may by regulations modify legislation governing the basic payment scheme to make provision for and in connection with securing that the basic payment scheme continues to operate in relation to Northern Ireland for one or more years beyond 2020.
(2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) includes power to provide for the direct payments ceiling for Northern Ireland for any relevant year to be determined, in a specified manner, by DAERA.
(3) Provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) must require a determination in respect of a relevant year to be published as soon as practicable after it has been made, and
(b) may confer functions on any person in connection with, or with the making of, a determination in respect of a relevant year.
(4) In this paragraph—
“the direct payments ceiling for Northern Ireland” is the national ceiling of the kind referred to in Article 6 of the Direct Payments Regulation that is applicable in relation to Northern Ireland for any relevant year;
“relevant year” means a year in respect of which direct payments under the basic payment scheme fall, as a result of provision under sub-paragraph (1), to be made in relation to Northern Ireland;
“specified” means specified in regulations under this paragraph.
(5) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
The new paragraph 2B inserted by this amendment makes the equivalent provision for Northern Ireland as that made by NC3 for England.
Amendment 38, in Schedule 4, page 45, line 42, at end insert—
2C (1) DAERA may by regulations modify legislation governing the coupled support scheme for or in connection with—
(a) making provision for the continuation, in relation to Northern Ireland, of the option to make payments under the scheme after any time at which, without the provision, the option would terminate;
(b) making changes DAERA considers will simplify or improve the scheme so far as it operates, or could be operated, in relation to Northern Ireland.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
The new paragraph 2C inserted by this amendment provides a power to make regulations modifying the Direct Payments Regulation and connected legislation, as it applies in Northern Ireland and so far as relating to the coupled support scheme, so that the option to operate a voluntary coupled support scheme may be continued into the future and the scheme simplified or improved.
Amendment 39, in Schedule 4, page 46, line 16, at end insert “(unless section 29(4A) applies)”
See the Explanatory Statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 40, in Schedule 4, page 54, line 15, at end insert “(unless section 29(4A) applies)”—(George Eustice.)
See the Explanatory Statement for Amendment 2.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29
Regulations
Amendment made: 14, in clause 29, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations which—
(a) contain provision made by virtue of subsection (3)(c) modifying primary legislation, and
(b) would, apart from this subsection, be subject to negative resolution procedure,
are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(George Eustice.)
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 29(3)(c) which make supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision modifying primary legislation are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
George Eustice
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 29, page 23, line 35, at end insert—
“( ) Section 41(3) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 applies in relation to the laying of a document before the Northern Ireland Assembly by virtue of this section as it applies in relation to the laying of a statutory document under an enactment (as defined in that Act).”
Section 41(3) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 provides mechanics for the laying of certain documents before the Northern Ireland Assembly. This amendment makes clear that those mechanics apply to the laying of regulations or draft regulations under the Bill.
I can be very brief, since this is an uncontroversial technical amendment. It simply provides the mechanics for laying certain documents before the Northern Ireland Assembly. If we did not make the amendment, we would lose an opportunity to ensure the consistent application of section 41(3) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 and of the way a statutory instrument or statutory document is laid before the Assembly. This is a narrow technical issue that DAERA officials identified and asked us to correct.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
I do not intend to say much more. The clause contains largely technical provisions and powers to ensure we can duly report, as I indicated in the case of Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Interpretation
George Eustice
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 30, page 24, line 3, leave out from “legislation”” to end of line 4 and insert
“means an instrument made under primary legislation or under retained direct EU legislation.”
This amendment expands the definition of subordinate legislation that is already in the Bill to include legislation which is made under primary legislation made by the devolved legislatures.
This is another minor technical change. We identified that we needed to replace the words
“has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978”
with the words
“means an instrument made under primary legislation or under retained direct EU legislation”.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to close another gap that has been identified by ensuring that statutory instruments made by the devolved legislatures come within the scope of the definition of “subordinate legislation”. The amendment expands that definition so secondary legislation made by the devolved legislatures can also effect primary provisions. Again, I think the amendment is uncontroversial—it simply ensures that the clause gives effect to statutory instruments made by the devolved Administrations.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Consequential amendments
George Eustice
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 31, page 24, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
Schedule 5 to the Bill amends the CMO Regulation in consequence of provision contained in the Bill. Clause 31 sets out which provision that is. Nothing in Schedule 5 is consequential on the provision mentioned in paragraph (c). This amendment therefore omits paragraph (c) from the list in Clause 31.
This is another minor technical amendment, which simply corrects and clarifies various problems in the original drafting of the Bill. The amendments do not significantly change the effect of the legislation; they simply correct minor drafting errors. One removes a paragraph that has no effect, and one matches the drafting powers for Welsh Ministers with those of English Ministers.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
The CMO Regulation: consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
Schedule 5 sets out consequential amendments to the CMO regulation. Those amendments revoke powers of the Commission in retained EU law where those powers are being replaced by new domestic powers elsewhere in the Bill. We will be able to use domestic powers to ensure the best possible outcomes for UK farmers. The new domestic powers relate to exceptional market conditions in England and Wales, as set out in clauses 17 and 18 for England and in paragraphs 16 and 17 of schedule 3 for Wales, and to marketing standards and carcase classification in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as set out in clause 20 for England, paragraph 19 of schedule 3 for Wales, and paragraph 10 of schedule 4 for Northern Ireland.
The inclusion of schedule 5 is crucial to avoid confusion about which power will be used after our exit from the EU. It disapplies the relevant articles for England and Wales in the case of exceptional market conditions. For marketing standards and carcase classification, the schedule disapplies the relevant articles for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 32
Power to make consequential etc provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Drew
I am tired, Mr Wilson, but I will not make a habit of it. I want to make a brief point that will no doubt be picked up in the other place. The clause contains a Henry VIII power, of which there are a number in the Bill, as the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee clearly pointed out.
We will not oppose the clause, but it puts the onus on and gives enormous opportunities to whichever Government choose to use it to make subsequent changes to the legislation. Given that we are coming to the end of the part of the Bill that lays down that legislation, we have concerns about the number of Henry VIII clauses that the Government could bring into play. That will not necessarily be this Government; it could be a subsequent Government.
The Lords, which I am sure will look at this in great detail, might cast some aspersions about the degree to which the Government have tried to get away with giving future Administrations a real opportunity to make dramatic changes using secondary legislation. Those changes should really require primary legislation, which is what we are here to administer, encourage and scrutinise. It should be clear that primary legislation in areas as important as agriculture should be the dominant driver for whatever changes we make. The Minister may care to defend the number of Henry VIII clauses in the Bill.
George Eustice
I want to give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance about clause 32. It is a fairly standard inclusion in many Bills, and it is clear from subsection (1) that it is about consequential changes. In particular, that subsection talks about
“provision or savings in connection with any provision of this Act.”
If a change were made to the administration of a pillar 2 countryside stewardship scheme, and that affected a scheme that had been entered into under a previous body of law, the Government might want to be able to make consequential amendments as a result—to be able to pay the final year of a countryside stewardship agreement, for instance. Those are the kinds of changes we are talking about. It is difficult to predict when the Government might need to use that power, but it is to be used in a very narrow set of circumstances—for those savings provisions, effectively—just to ensure that we can tidy up loose ends. It is not to be used to make, or change, policy. It is very clear that these amendments are consequential to other provisions that have already been debated.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Financial provision
Mr Dunne
I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 33, page 24, line 39, at end insert—
“(2) Payments made by virtue of this Act must be paid pursuant to regulations made by the Secretary of State to implement a multi-annual financial framework determining the monies available under this section.
(3) Prior to any payments being made under this section, regulations must be laid before the beginning of the agricultural transition period.”
The Agriculture Bill should establish a multi-annual budgetary framework that provides certainty for farmers and allows them to plan and invest for the future.
I stress at the outset that this is a probing amendment, and I am looking for the Minister to give me some comfort that what I am asking for is in line with current practice and widely supported by the industry. I urge the Minister to have discussions across Government to consider whether something along the lines of this amendment could be incorporated in the Bill at a later stage. I have tabled the amendment because under the scheme that we are currently looking to replace—the CAP scheme—multi-year support packages have been agreed, and all farmers across the UK have been operating according to those packages and are accustomed to them. That is my first point.
Secondly, the Government have already acknowledged the importance of a multi-year settlement in the transition arrangements that they have announced and the Minister has secured from the Treasury, with a commitment to 2022, which is a significant development. I give full credit to the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for securing a commitment from the Treasury that takes us ahead of the comprehensive spending review period—outwith that—in order for farmers to have confidence in the way in which the current scheme will transition into the new one.
Thirdly, the new scheme is intended to be a multi-year arrangement for the period from 2021, as we move from an area-based payment to a public goods-based payment. The Government have clearly recognised that multi-year arrangements are required for this industry, not least because—as we have heard previously in this Committee—many tenancy agreements and stewardship arrangements are undertaken by farmers on a multi-year basis. That is not always the case: some tenancy arrangements, such as grass keep, last for only one season, but many last for many years.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
I have visited a farm in Suffolk at the NFU’s invitation, and seen the various improvements that the farmer wanted to make to his farm. However, he was not sure whether he would be able to claim money for those improvements in future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely difficult for farmers to make improvements to their farms when they do not know the future shape of the financial settlement?
Mr Dunne
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not just about farm improvements, of course; it is about the rotational nature of farming. Arable farming relies on an assumption of continued occupation for a period of years, in order to adopt an appropriate rotational pattern for the use of the land over a number of years. For all those reasons, it is entirely appropriate that the Government should consider a multi-annual scheme.
Perhaps I may refer to some of the external support that I have received for the amendment, which I am sure other members of the Committee have seen as well. I am sure that it is no coincidence that during the passage of the Bill we have had the benefit of presentations elsewhere on the parliamentary estate from a large number of groups interested in agriculture, and in what happens in the environment on and around our farms. I am sure that many hon. Members will have gone to yesterday’s presentation by the wildlife trusts. There have been presentations in the past couple of weeks from Greener UK, an umbrella group of 14 organisations, all of which are supportive, including the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association and the Woodland Trust, which has also organised presentations in Parliament recently.
Also in Greener UK is the National Trust, which I visited on Friday in my constituency, and which is particularly concerned about some of the conservation measures it is introducing across its estate. I think it is the largest private sector landowner in the country, with something like 1,800 tenant farmers operating around the UK. While on the subject of the National Trust, I commend to the Minister the Stepping Stones project, in which it seeks to link together landscapes across the Shropshire Hills area of outstanding natural beauty. As he has not visited my constituency to see that work in action, I am keen to invite him to do so, because the trust wants to bring forward an environmental land management scheme, and I was impressed by what I saw last Friday. It wants multi-annual arrangements, as do the other organisations, and I strongly encourage the Minister to recognise that that is how farming in this country functions, so it is appropriate at least to consider a scheme of that nature.
The amendment would also insert a provision about having a scheme in place at the outset, not as an afterthought during transition. Whenever we move from one scheme to another, things should be set out clearly in advance, to give farmers the confidence they need to undertake projects that, as I have explained, take several years, as well as confidence that they will be able to farm appropriately in the future.
Dr Drew
The amendment is similar to new clause 10, which we debated previously. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on tabling it. Finance is at the centre of the Bill. Unless we get some clarification, the Bill will not, despite all the powers in it and all the good intentions, really provide certainty and security—whether to farmers or environmental organisations, which all signed up to it.
We are dealing with pretty important stuff. Although there has been some variance between the farmers’ organisations and environmental organisations, they speak with one voice on the amendment, as they did on new clause 10. We pay attention or lose their valuable support, which is a shame, because the Bill has a degree of cross-organisational support and we have made it clear that there are good things in it, which we support. We are just carrying out our Opposition role of trying to improve it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow on the amendment. It is important that we have a further debate about it, and that we recognise that the money is crucial. Otherwise, the warm words will not satisfy those who feel strongly about what they will be expected to do when and if the Bill comes into force. It involves a huge cultural change in the way we support those who work on the land.
As the hon. Member for Ludlow rightly said, the proposal has received a wide range of support. I hope that that matters to the Government, and that the Minister will respond to it. It includes other things that we might want to do on the land, which is not necessarily what we have done in the past. For example, we could look at transport infrastructure or social housing, which may be a sequitur to the things we want to do to improve the environment. If people cannot live in the countryside, they cannot work in it and carry out the environmental improvements that we want. The Government have a whole raft of environmental schemes in mind, including planting woodland and alleviating flooding, but those who want to do it need to have some knowledge of the funding arrangements that will be in place. Unless that is done annually, we will not know how serious it is. We are saying that it could be done over a number of years. The Government need to report to Parliament, which means that there will be a public document showing exactly what money is being made available and what the restrictions are. We talked earlier about the devolution settlement. It is important that the Administrations outside England know exactly what moneys they will have and the purposes to which they can be put.
Greener UK pointed to the need for an independent assessor. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow does not do that, but Greener UK argues that it would be helpful to know the minimum and maximum amounts that might be forthcoming from the Government to do the sort of things that are necessary. The idea of multi-annual funding is that it allows the money to be vired from one year to another if it cannot be spent in the year originally intended.
I hope the Government see the benefit of the amendment. We will support it wholeheartedly. We see it not as a probing amendment, but as a very important part of the way in which the Government should be doing their business. It would mean that our countryside is healthier and funded more appropriately and transparently than would otherwise be the case.
In evidence to us, Andrew Clark made it very clear why the NFU supports the amendment. It sees it as part of the long-term commitment to allow farming to continue contracting around the environmental and land-management arrangements that the Government have in mind. He was clear about why we need the power to vire money between annual budgets. Knowing what those budgets are is absolutely crucial. The hon. Member for North Dorset, in cross-examining him, seemed quite sympathetic to that idea—as, indeed, is the hon. Member for Ludlow and, I hope, other Conservative Members.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I will be mercifully brief, as other hon. Members have covered many of the matters.
I have been a farmer and been involved in agriculture for a number of years. We work in cycles of five, seven or 10 years. As the hon. Member for Stroud has just said, a multi-annual financial framework is an essential part of agriculture. As we mentioned in earlier debates, it is particularly important that we do not allow the agricultural budget to become politicised and subject to annual discretionary spending decisions, and that parties of all colours are able to recognise the long-term commitment to agriculture.
The Scottish NFU is supportive of the amendment. The Minister is obviously influenced by the Treasury, which influences everything, and I hope that we give power to his elbow. It is important that the Treasury understands that the long-term commitment, as in many other industries, is very important for the farming industry.
We are not going to press the amendment to a vote, but it is noteworthy that a Welsh colleague, an English colleague and a Scottish colleague support it. In seeking to represent Scottish farmers, I reiterate that I very much want to see a multi-annual framework.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I am sure that there is a good story in there somewhere about a Welsh MP, an English MP and a Scottish MP, but we shall not go down that route at this moment. [Interruption.] It is after lunch, after all.
I am delighted to support the amendment. My hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow and for Gordon have made very convincing cases, and I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Stroud also making a convincing case. Farming, as we all know, is a long-term measure, and there are many farmers among Conservative Members. We have not just visited a farm on the recommendation of the NFU; we are involved in farming on a daily basis. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is from a farming family, will be well aware of the need for long-term funding, which is important in farming for breeding and planting.
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on forestry, and long-term funding is vital for the future of the forestry sector and the wood industry. With softwood, the period from planting to profit is probably 40 years. With hardwood, it is 80 to 100 years. It is very important that schemes are in place to ensure the correct funding. I am delighted to support the amendment and I am sure and very much hope that the Government will look on it positively.
George Eustice
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow, for Gordon and for Brecon and Radnorshire, I understand that this is a critical issue. I agree with the sentiment that we can put into the Bill all the powers we like and come up with all the creative policy we like, but that they will not mean anything without money to underpin them.
For reasons that the Committee will understand, I will not support the amendment. Before I come on to that point, however, it is important to recognise what we have already done to acknowledge the importance of clarity on funding. At the last general election, we made a commitment to keep the total cash spent on agriculture at the same level for the duration of this Parliament until 2022. That breached and went beyond a Treasury spending review period, but the Conservative party took the decision that it was right and proper to prejudge the spending review process so that we could give clarity and certainty to farmers.
The challenge, as I understand it, is that the scheme is currently funded in a roundabout way by our sending money to Brussels and then getting it back. The concern that some farmers will have is whether the Government will be willing to support the scheme. My view is that the approximately £3 billion that we currently spend every year on agriculture and the farmed environment is relatively modest in the context of other areas of Government spending. Some Departments—perhaps including a Department that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is familiar with—regularly accidentally overshoot their national budget. Given what it delivers for the farmed environment that covers 70% of our land, for habitats, for water and air quality, and for our important environmental objectives, £3 billion is a fairly modest sum.
As the policy returns home and we take back control, there will be a responsibility on Parliament—and on political parties in their manifestos—to demonstrate their commitment to our farmed environment and wildlife. We know that wildlife organisations have huge memberships: the RSPB and the Wildlife Trust each have between 1.7 million and 2 million members. We know that the British public are passionate about their countryside, wildlife and environment and want us to give them due priority and support.
We have therefore not only committed to keeping the cash total the same until 2022 but made a manifesto commitment to implement and fund a new environmental land management scheme after that. We have not described the total quantum of funding after 2022, but there is an absolute commitment for there to be a funded policy. We have also made it clear that agreements entered into by the end of 2022 under the existing pillar 2 schemes—some of which will run for a decade—will all be funded for the duration of their terms. I believe that we have done a lot in the area already.
As a former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow knows that in the long term these matters are ultimately dealt with through the spending review process. A spending review process is under way, and we expect it to conclude next year. By their very nature, spending reviews are multi-annual; they tend to set a financial envelope within a period such as five years. Departments also have other processes, such as single departmental plans and Supply estimates applied at departmental level, so that we have some continuity and multi-annual understanding in our approach to funding, rather than a stop-go process from year to year.
Finally, our new environmental land management scheme is predominantly designed around multi-annual agreements. There will not simply be one-off yearly payments; we envisage farmers entering into an agreement for three, five or possibly 10 years. It is implicit in the design that we have outlined for the scheme that a multi-annual understanding of funding will be needed.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that I share his view that this matter is important and that I view the current spending on agriculture and the farmed environment as a relatively modest sum of money. We could deploy it far more effectively to achieve far more, but the spending review process is the right place to identify funding post 2022. I am sure that he and other colleagues will be making representations to the Chancellor and the Treasury on this matter.
George Eustice
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 34, page 25, line 15, at end insert—
‘( ) Part (Red Meat Levy) extends to England and Wales and Scotland only.”
The amendment relates to NC4 which is expected to form a Part of its own (under the heading “Red Meat Levy”) rather than being inserted in an existing Part of the Bill. The amendment provides for the new Part to form part of the law of England and Wales and Scotland only, because nothing in it relates to Northern Ireland.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 30—Red meat levy: payments between levy bodies in Great Britain.
New clause 6—Red meat levy redistribution—
‘(1) The Ministers shall establish a scheme for the redistribution of red meat levy in accordance with this section.
(2) The scheme shall make provision for amounts of red meat levy collected by the levy body for one country in Great Britain to be paid to the levy body for another such country.
(3) The scheme shall make provision about—
(a) how the amount of a payment is to be calculated, which shall be by reference to such matters as may be specified in the scheme,
(b) when a payment is to be made, provided that payments shall be made not less than annually and no later than three months after the end of the financial year in which the levy has been collected, and
(c) how a payment is to be made.
(4) Before making the scheme the Ministers shall consult the levy bodies.
(5) The Ministers shall publish the scheme in such manner as they may determine.
(6) A levy body must comply with any requirement imposed on it by the scheme.
(7) A payment received by a levy body in accordance with the scheme may be used by that body in the same way as levy collected by that body.
(8) The scheme may be reviewed at any time by the Ministers and shall be so reviewed at least every five years.
(9) The scheme may make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision, and may amend or repeal any earlier scheme.
(10) In this section—
“the levy bodies” means—
(a) for England, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board established by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/420);
(b) for Scotland, Quality Meat Scotland established by the Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 (S.S.I. 2008/77);
(c) for Wales, the Welsh Ministers or, where the power under section 7 of the Red Meat Industry (Wales) Measure 2010 (nawm 3) to delegate functions has been exercised by the Welsh Ministers, the person exercising the function of imposing levy on slaughterers under section 4 of that Measure 2010;
“the Ministers” means the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers, acting jointly;
“payment” means any payment which is to be made under the scheme by any levy body;
“red meat levy” means—
(a) in relation to England, producer levy imposed under Schedule 3 to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008;
(b) in relation to Scotland, producer levy imposed under Schedule 3 to the Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008;
(c) in relation to Wales, the production component of levy imposed under section 4 of the Red Meat Industry (Wales) Measure 2010; and
“scheme” means a scheme established by the Ministers in accordance with this section.
The new clause requires a scheme to be made by the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers for redistribution of part of the red meat levy collected by the levy bodies in Great Britain to the other levy bodies.
Government amendment 43.
George Eustice
Amendments 42 and 43 are paving and consequential amendments for new clause 30, which is the Government’s proposal for a red meat levy scheme. Amendment 43 amends the long title of the Bill to relate it to the red meat levy.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and for Brecon and Radnorshire highlighted the issue in an amendment. They withdrew their original amendment following discussion with us and tabled new clause 30, which we are willing to support. The red meat levy issue has run all the time that I have been the farming Minister. In 2008, there was a change to how levies were collected by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and the other levy bodies. Representations were made then by the devolved Administrations that they should collect their own levy directly from the abattoirs and pay that money to the levy boards. The last Labour Government therefore made some changes to reflect the requests of the devolved Administrations and give them the power to collect their own levy. Prior to that, it had been allocated through a UK-wide formula.
After the new regulations were introduced in 2008, there were some closures of abattoirs in Scotland and Wales, with the consequence that more livestock—both sheep and cattle—were being taken across the border to England to be slaughtered. The levy was therefore captured in England by the AHDB, rather than by the levy bodies in Wales and Scotland.
The issue is complex, in that elements of the AHDB’s work are absolutely UK-wide, so it incurs costs on behalf of the whole UK. That is notably for trade—this is an argument that it has made—but nevertheless a feeling has persisted in the levy bodies in Wales and Scotland that they lose out on some of the levy as a result of animals crossing the border. The Government have looked at a number of ways to address that.
Lesley Griffiths from the Welsh Government made representations, which we reflected in a recent consultation and review of the AHDB, about whether we could look at a different methodology for collecting the levy. Rather than collect the red meat levy at the point of slaughter, we could perhaps collect it as an ear tag levy or a registration levy at the point at which animals were born. That consultation is ongoing and a change in how the levy is collected might be a good long-term solution. In the meantime, both the Welsh and Scottish Governments—as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and for Brecon and Radnorshire—have made representations that we should put in place a power that enables us to resolve this in the short term by making it possible with mutual consent to move some levy from AHDB in England back to Wales or Scotland. The amendment enables that to happen with the agreement of the relevant Administrations involved.
Deidre Brock
I rise to speak to clause 34 and new clause 6. The Radcliffe report recommended changes to the red meat levy in 2005, and successive UK Governments really should hang their heads in shame at its taking 13 years to get to the stage where the matter is finally being addressed. To be more exact, the preparation for putting in place a scheme for addressing the red meat levy is happening at last. I understand that discussions between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Government continued right up to the wire, so I am very pleased that DEFRA Ministers have given ground on this. I congratulate them on their very good sense in listening to Scotland.
The pressure for this change came from farmers, whose levy moneys were not being spent to their benefit, and from the promotion boards, whose jobs were made harder by those funds not being properly distributed—a couple of million pounds a year taken from both Scotland and Wales. Quality Meat Scotland and NFUS, as well as their counterparts in Wales, deserve credit for their long-running campaigns to rectify this anomaly. Frankly, politicians should be ashamed that it has taken so long.
With that said, I welcome the Minister’s agreement to the amendment. Discussions between his Department and Scottish Government Departments might not always have been easy, but they have brought an agreement that we can all live with. I will withdraw my amendment—to give this one a clear path—if I can get a couple of reassurances from the Minister.
First, can we be assured that timescales will be specified to give certainty to the levy boards? Time lags clearly would be a difficulty for the boards, and regular, consistent income streams would be more beneficial to allow their work to carry on as it should, and also to allow forward planning to be conducted properly. Can we also have an assurance that the scheme will be reviewed on a regular basis, such as every five years or so, to ensure that it is operating properly? If I can have those assurances from the Minister, then he and I are on the same page—at least on this—and we agree on the way forward.
I welcome this change to the operation of the red meat levy and the Minister’s willingness to listen to the voices from Scotland and Wales that have been calling for it. That work with the Scottish Government is an example that one hopes the rest of the Departments in Whitehall can follow.
Colin Clark
I rise simply to thank the Minister for supporting the amendment and to echo the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith—this has been called for for quite some time, and it is good that just over £1.5 million will be spent on promoting Scotland. We have to remember that the vast majority of red meat is exported south of the border, and we are very grateful that the promotion will continue for the entire country.
Chris Davies
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, who is a joint signatory to the amendment. We both thank the Minister for supporting the amendment, discussing it with us and agreeing a way forward. This has been called for—not just by the farming unions, but by farmers themselves—for a very long time in Wales and, as we have just heard, in Scotland. I am sure that it is the same in England.
As somebody whose constituency is right on the border, I feel that what the Minister said is very appropriate. Sadly, so many slaughterhouses have closed that people cross borders with their stock. In Wales, we have lost a lot of revenue across Offa’s Dyke. Money has perhaps been spent not on Welsh land promotion, but on other things.
Opposition Members will certainly know how the meat levy is worked out: it is a jointly funded levy that is paid by both the producer and the slaughterer or exporter. Under Hybu Cig Cymru, the current price paid per head of cattle in Wales is £5.67. It is 83p per sheep, and £1.30 per pig. That may not sound like a great deal per item, but when one considers how many animals are slaughtered each year for consumption, both in this country and across the world, it adds up to a considerable amount of money that is sometimes not correctly spent on the area that the animals come from. This has been called for for a very long time, and I am delighted that the Government are supporting it under new clause 30.
Dr Drew
It is good to see how cross-party collaboration can have an impact. I congratulate Conservative Members on getting the Minister to move—it is important. I am not an expert on this part of the Bill; we do not have that much beef farming in my part of the world, but some dairy cows get slaughtered and it is important that we know the impact of the levy boards. I am interested in what happens in Northern Ireland, which is not part of the scheme. Can they be brought in?
I am interested to know to what extent the separate boards—the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Hybu Cig Cymru operating in Wales and Quality Meat Scotland—will maintain their independence, given that the Bill, which is primary legislation, is making a change to how the moneys will be devolved. It would be useful to know to what extent the different organisations will maintain complete independence or whether the administration of the funding will become more complex. I suppose the AHDB would take over all responsibility and devolve the moneys down to the different organisations.
It is good. This is what primary legislation is for: to improve what we have at the moment and do it differently and better. It is pleasing that it seems that all the farming organisations are in favour of the proposal, so I cannot see any reason why the Opposition would not be in favour of it. Again, I would like some clarity about exactly how the scheme operates at the moment and the changes that are, hopefully, going to make it better. We support what is proposed and hope that this good bit of the Bill will receive unanimous support at every level of debate, both in this place and the other place.
George Eustice
It is great to have an outbreak of consensus on this issue. I will address some of the points raised, first by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. New clause 30(2) addresses all her concerns because it makes provision in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) for:
“when a payment is to be made”,
so it is clear the scheme can design that;
“how a payment is to be made,”
and
“the duration of the scheme”.
We envisage that an assessment may be made of the type of animal movements, based on the cattle movement records, and then a scheme could be set that might run for a year, two years—a number of years—to reflect those cattle movements; and a scheme could be put in place that enabled the transfers. It is very clear that the scheme that would be designed would provide for those particular issues.
On the points that the shadow Minister made, the boards would retain their independence. This is where I take some issue with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. It has not taken 13 years to sort out. We must recognise what happened. The previous Labour Government, with very good intentions and at the request of the devolved Administrations, gave the devolved Administrations the power to collect their own levy, because that is what they said they wanted at the time. Two or three years after that, when a number of abattoirs in Wales and Scotland had closed, the industry there started to say, “This change now disadvantages us because we are not getting a fair share of the levy that is collected.”
To be fair to the previous Labour Administration and my predecessors from some years ago, they were reacting and responding to requests from the devolved Administrations at the time. For reasons of closures of abattoirs, that did not work out and this slight problem was left and has run for a number of years. We have consulted on a possible long-term solution through a different collection methodology, potentially to do with ear tags, but we concede that a fix of this sort, which would enable us legislatively to move money around with the agreement of all the relevant devolved Administrations, is the right power to put in place.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Clause 34 sets out which legal jurisdictions are being changed by the Bill, recognising that England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different bodies of law. Extent is different from application, which is about the persons or matters to which a provision relates. Retained EU legislation will form part of the body of law shared by all parts of the UK; therefore, provisions of the Bill that amend or provide for the amendment of retained EU law will extend to all UK jurisdictions. Those provisions may none the less apply differently in different parts of the UK. Where it legislates on reserved matters, the Bill extends and applies to the whole of the UK. The Government have provided the Committee with their updated analysis of where the provisions of the Bill extend and apply and, where applicable, where corresponding provisions would be within the competence of the devolved legislatures.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 35 and 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Power to reduce the direct payments ceilings for England in 2020 by up to 15%
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for and in connection with reducing the national and net direct payments ceilings for England that would otherwise apply in 2020 by up to 15%.
(2) For this purpose—
the “national direct payments ceiling for England” is the sum representing the share allocated to England of the amount specified for the United Kingdom in Annex II of the Direct Payments Regulation (table of national ceilings);
the “net direct payments ceiling for England” is the sum representing the share allocated to England of the amount specified for the United Kingdom in Annex III of the Direct Payments Regulation (table of net ceilings).
(3) Regulations under this section cannot be made after the end of 2020.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(George Eustice.)
The provisions in EU legislation for inter-pillar transfers of up to 15% of the national ceiling for direct payments to the budget for rural development scheme payments will not apply in relation to the 2020 scheme year. The new Clause enables a reduction of up to 15% of the share allocated to England of the UK’s direct payment ceiling for 2020 under the Direct Payments Regulation.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Power to provide for the continuation of the basic payment scheme beyond 2020
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify legislation governing the basic payment scheme to make provision for and in connection with securing that the basic payment scheme continues to operate in relation to England for one or more years beyond 2020 (subject to any provision made under section 7).
(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to provide for the direct payments ceiling for England for any relevant year to be determined, in a specified manner, by the Secretary of State.
(3) Provision made by virtue of subsection (2)—
(a) must require a determination in respect of a relevant year to be published as soon as practicable after it has been made, and
(b) may confer functions on any person in connection with, or with the making of, a determination in respect of a relevant year.
(4) In this section—
“the direct payments ceiling for England” is the national ceiling of the kind referred to in Article 6 of the Direct Payments Regulation that is applicable in relation to England for any relevant year;
“relevant year” means a year within the agricultural transition period for England in respect of which direct payments under the basic payment scheme fall to be made in relation to England;
“specified” means specified in regulations under this section.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(George Eustice.)
The current text of the Direct Payments Regulation relating to the basic payment scheme only covers years up to 2020. The new clause allows regulations to make provision continuing the basic payment scheme beyond 2020 during the agricultural transition period for England, although this is subject to clause 7 which provides for the phasing out or termination of the basic payment scheme during the transition period. The new clause also makes clear that this includes power to provide for the relevant national ceiling for England to be determined outside the Direct Payments Regulation, rather than simply being specified in it.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 30
Red meat levy: payments between levy bodies in Great Britain
“(1) A scheme under this section (“the scheme”) may—
(a) make provision for amounts of red meat levy collected by the levy body for one country in Great Britain to be paid to the levy body for another such country, or
(b) amend, suspend or revoke an earlier scheme made under this section.
(2) The scheme may make provision about—
(a) the method by which the amount of a payment is to be calculated,
(b) who is to determine the amount of a payment,
(c) when a payment is to be made,
(d) how a payment is to be made, and
(e) the duration of the scheme;
and in this subsection “payment” means any payment which is to be made under the scheme by a levy body.
(3) The method of calculating the amount of a payment may include calculation by reference to any matters specified in the scheme, including—
(a) the number of animals—
(i) in respect of which red meat levy was imposed by the levy body making the payment in a given period, and
(ii) which have a given connection with the country of the levy body which is to receive the payment;
(b) the administrative costs of implementing the scheme for the levy bodies involved in the payment.
(4) A payment made under the scheme is to be treated by the levy body receiving it as if it were red meat levy collected by that body.
(5) The scheme may make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision (including provision conferring functions).
(6) A levy body must comply with any requirement imposed on it by the scheme.
(7) The scheme—
(a) is to be made jointly by—
(i) the Secretary of State, if it involves the levy body for England, and
(ii) the Scottish Ministers, if it involves the levy body for Scotland, and
(iii) the Welsh Ministers, if it involves the levy body for Wales;
(b) must be published in such manner as may be determined by the authorities making it.
(8) For the purposes of this section the levy bodies for the countries in Great Britain are—
(a) for England, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board;
(b) for Scotland, Quality Meat Scotland;
(c) for Wales, the person for the time being exercising the Welsh Ministers’ function of imposing levy on slaughterers under section 4 of the Red Meat Industry (Wales) Measure 2010 (nawm 3).
(9) In this section, “red meat levy” means—
(a) in relation to the levy body for England, producer levy imposed on slaughterers under Schedule 3 to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008 (SI 2008/576);
(b) in relation to the levy body for Scotland, producer levy imposed on slaughterers under Schedule 3 to the Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 (S.S.I 2008/77);
(c) in relation to the levy body for Wales, the production component (within the meaning of Schedule 2 to the Red Meat Industry (Wales) Measure 2010) of levy imposed on slaughterers under section 4 of that Measure.”—(George Eustice.)
This new clause enables a scheme to be made for some of the red meat levy collected by a levy body in one country within Great Britain to be paid to another levy body in Great Britain. This would reflect the fact that some cattle, sheep or pigs produced in one country may be slaughtered in another country. Without the ability to make payments under a scheme the producer levy paid in respect of those animals in the country of slaughter can only be spent on activities which benefit red meat producers in that country.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We will get active again now, having had a thorough but rapid run through some parts of the Bill. New clauses often deal not with what is going to be in the Bill but with what should be in it. We make no apology for saying that this should be a comprehensive Bill that looks at some of the big issues of our day.
There is nothing more important than the relationship between agriculture and our international obligations, so I make no apology for tabling new clause 8. Of course we want the Government to say that everything in the new clause will be in the forthcoming environment Bill—provided there is a Government and an environment Bill—but we thought we would test the water to see whether there were ways in which this Bill could at least take cognisance of those vital international obligations.
Let us look at our proposed changes, which are all vital in their own way. We are asking that the Bill take notice of what the different vital international obligations require us to do. In so doing, as subsection (3) says, there should be a duty to consult the relevant authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is important because it is putting some building around the scaffold, to use the analogy that has been applied to the Bill several times. The Bill is quite limited in what it seeks to do, so we are asking the Minister to go further.
The new clause requires a report. It does not require huge changes in legislation, but some cohesion in the way in which the Government approach how they intend to use the Bill. I hope that it is not seen to be outwith what the Bill is about but that it is helpful, because it will allow the Secretary of State, or whoever is required to do it, to bring forward a report on how those international obligations are met through the Bill. At the moment, of course, we are part of the EU, so that will take place automatically through some of the ways in which the EU meets its international obligations, but we are presupposing that the UK will not be part of the EU. Brexit means that we need to put into domestic law what was previously implied through our membership of the European Union.
I will immediately sit down and not go any further if the Minister tells me that this will all be in the environment Bill, so the new clause is premature and the issue does not need to be spoken about at length now. Unless we get that assurance, however, we will press the new clause, because we think it is important to signal how British agriculture and the environmental support systems that we are putting in place will operate through the different international obligations to which we are party. If the Minister cannot confirm that, one wonders what we will do to meet our international obligations and targets in the future.
I will not go into any detail about the individual agreements, but clearly the Paris agreement is vital to our commitment to tackle climate change. We tried to get the Government to accept amendment 50, and if they had, the new clause would probably not have been necessary. Sadly, they did not listen to us and we lost the vote on that amendment. In moving this new clause, we make it clear that the Paris agreement is crucial in terms of how the Bill should meet that commitment.
We do not have a good story to tell. Agricultural emissions have flatlined in recent years—there has been no improvement—and we have a major problem with methane and carbon, so we have to do much more. The new clause implies that agriculture must do more, as the 2018 IPCC report said. It is not just that producers have to do more; we should lay down some clear guidelines for consumers about sustainable diets that include what we should eat rather than what we do eat. There should be guidelines about reducing food waste, soil sequestration, livestock and manure management, reducing deforestation, afforestation, reforestation and responsible sourcing. They are all part of what the IPCC is asking us to do.
In the new clause we are bringing forward an important piece of potential legislation—we would all sign up to sustainable development, but we want to do so in the Bill. We ask the Government to recognise that including those obligations is appropriate. If not, we want assurances from the Minister that the environment Bill will include them. If the Government intend to include those obligations in the environment Bill, let us put on record here that including them at this juncture, in the Agriculture Bill, is less important.
The Government need to recognise how important those different obligations are and explain how we are meeting them. I have only identified a small number, but those are, to my mind, the most relevant to agriculture, and the ones that really matter to ensure that our agriculture meets its international obligations. I hope that the Minister has listened to what I have said, because it is not just in the interests of people on this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East raised this matter in an earlier sitting of the Committee, and it is supported across the board by Greener UK, which feels strongly that we should be setting longer term objectives—that is why the new clause is popular. We hope that, in due course, it will stand part of the Bill, or that its aims will be clearly spelled out in future Government legislation—namely, the environment Bill.
We have read how the 25-year environment plan will contextualise what the Government intend to do and it contextualises the Bill. It would be good to hear what the Government and the Minister intend to do to ensure that those warm words are put into a statutory framework, so that we know exactly what the UK will do when—or if—it leaves the European Union, and know that we are signed up to a better environmental world and one that agriculture plays its part in creating.
George Eustice
The Government take our international obligations very seriously. The list of international conventions and forums to which we are a signatory is long. I will not fob the hon. Gentleman off by saying that the obligations will be included in the environment Bill. I can go one better: we already produce many reports under all of those conventions.
I have often said, in the context of calls for statutory requirements for consultations, that DEFRA loves consultations, so there is no need for a statutory requirement. I can also confirm that in my time as a Minister, I have discovered that DEFRA loves annual reports as well. Indeed, I often say to officials, “Am I the only one who reads this report?”. Given that the hon. Gentleman said that we should be publishing reports, he clearly does not read some of those that already get published, so I will cover some of them now.
There are already reporting requirements under decision 24/CP.19 and decision 2/CP.17 of the UN framework convention on climate change; under article 26 of the convention on biological diversity; under article 33 of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety; and under article 8, paragraphs 6 to 8, of the convention on international trade in endangered species. Under the Paris agreement and the Climate Change Act 2008, an annual statement of emissions is provided to Parliament. Every five years we provide a similar statement to Parliament stating the final performance under a given carbon budget.
Sandy Martin
Will that report make clear the effect the Bill will have on the ability to meet our commitments under the convention on biological diversity?
George Eustice
The report will not have commenced by December. Obviously the report will cover December. Absolutely, there are obligations under the CBD and where policies we have in this document help us to deliver some of our objectives under some of these international conventions—there are many different ones that are not listed here, such as the Bern convention and others—we would be able to reflect it.
Under the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which is also cited in subsection (1)(e), the UK is obliged to report every five years on how the rights outlined in ICESCR are being implemented. The next report to the UN is expected in 2021.
Under the UN sustainable development goals, progress is demonstrated via the single departmental plan process. There are departmental annual reports and accounts, and data that is reported by the Office for National Statistics.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I was waiting for the Minister to get on to the sustainable development goals, because that is where his response is weakest. There is not a clear mechanism. When the Environmental Audit Committee took evidence the other week on the progress being made on the goal to end hunger, we asked four Ministers from four different Departments whose responsibility it was in Government to deliver on that goal, and they all looked completely blank and turned to each other. We need a proper mechanism to report on what we are doing on the SDGs. It is not enough to say that it is buried in the detail of departmental plans.
George Eustice
The hon. Lady makes a legitimate point. That is one example where there is not a requirement within the convention or commitment to publish, but we pick up those obligations through the departmental plans.
The other area that we do not currently have a specific provision for is the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. I can tell the hon. Member for Stroud that the Fisheries Bill commits us in clause 1—I will not go too far down this point, because it is a separate Bill, which we have to look forward to—to a whole set of sustainability objectives and a joint fisheries statement to outline how we will deliver those objectives. The environmental objectives under UNCLOS will be picked up through the provisions in the forthcoming Fisheries Bill.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take these conventions seriously, that we already have a multitude of requirements to report through articles within the conventions themselves and, therefore, that the new clause is unnecessary.
Dr Drew
I thank the Minister for giving us a long list by way of explanation. This was more of a probing amendment, but we want to put it on the record that one of the difficulties with legislation is the degree to which it needs to be bound into other legislation. I think that this proposal is probably more appropriate for the environment Bill, but again, we need to put it on the record that the Government should be saying how they will meet their international obligations, not only through reports, but through the way in which they meet those obligations, which can then be manifest in the reports.
Sadly, the IPCC stated categorically—and I was there when Lord Deben, who was John Gummer, told me and a very big audience—that agriculture emissions were flatlining. Something somewhere is going wrong. International obligations are not being met; there should be a decrease. As it is, the only sector where there has been a significant decrease in the use of carbon is energy. Manufacturing, agriculture and the service economy are all flatlining. They are not reducing their dependence on carbon.
It is disappointing that we must bring the matter up, but bring it up we do. I shall accept what the Minister says at this stage, but I hope that he will listen to us and that when the environment Bill comes along there will be a clause on agriculture. In the 25-year environment plan there are quite a number of references to agriculture, as is right and proper, given that it is the most important user of the landscape. We want joined-up thinking and joined-up action.
We also want to know that the Government are dealing with areas in which, so far, they do not have a good record—I mean not just the present Government but predecessor Governments. They have simply failed on emissions standards. The Climate Change Act was only passed in 2008, so that is an easy cop-out for the previous Labour Government, but the reality is that we have not met our international obligations on agricultural emissions. I hope that the Government will do something more—they have to.
From talking to various people in Northern Ireland, I gather there is a huge problem with methane there, partly because of the growth of factory farming. That may or may not be acceptable—certainly to me it is not, but to some people it is. The downside is that methane emissions are growing rapidly. The Republic admits that it has a problem, although less than the north. We must recognise that change in agricultural systems is not always good; there can be a downside for the environment.
I shall not press new clause 8 to a vote, Members will be pleased to hear, but I hope that the Government will consider what has been said in this mini-debate, and think about how to make sure there is a strong component in the forthcoming Bill to reflect the role of agriculture. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Reports on impact on consumers
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament reports on the impact of the provisions of this Act on—
(a) the availability in England of agricultural products produced within the United Kingdom,
(b) the cost to the consumer in England of agricultural products produced within the United Kingdom, and
(c) the health and welfare of consumers in England.
(2) The first report under subsection (1) shall be laid no later than 31 March 2020, and subsequent reports shall be laid no later than 31 March in each calendar year.
(3) “Agricultural product”, for the purposes of this section, means a product that falls within a sector listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1.’ —(Dr Drew.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the impact of the Bill’s provisions on food security, availability and affordability, and the impact on consumer health and welfare.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Drew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have done some good work today, Mr Wilson. The new clause deals with what we make no apology for saying is a deficiency in the Bill. It is more to do with the consumption of agricultural products than their production, but it is to do with affordability, accessibility and sustainability—or any more abilities that we might want to include. It came out of the oral evidence sessions, and in particular that in which Erik Millstone and Terry Marsden—if Tim Lang had been available, he would have been there as well—referred to the three pillars: ecological farming, environmental protection and the link to food security and through to public health. That should be the triad underwriting the whole Bill.
We have been critical of the fact that, even though we are considering a Bill on agriculture, food rarely gets a mention. Health has disappeared completely, although, as I have said on a number of occasions, the original consultation paper was called “Health and Harmony”. It is disappointing that health has played such a limited role in the way the Bill has been constructed.
Millstone and Marsden talked about the need for some vision for a post-EU food system. The vision should include a mix of ecosystems and social and public health challenges that we should meet, of which the central one is food security. I know that is an issue that seems to have disappeared from everyone’s radar—in the noughties it was the issue, and we got very worried, on the back of BSE, foot and mouth and some of the horrible avian diseases that came our way, about our lack of food security. We seem to have allowed it to disappear from our mind so we have not paid due account to where it should be in the Bill.
This is not just something for me to wax lyrical about. There is huge support from the public, and they want leadership on food security. The public want to know that they have safe, secure and, dare I say, good food, produced with the highest animal welfare standards while meeting all the environmental protection legislation that we should be meeting as part of the EU. There seems to be a view that it will all be right when we leave at the end of March, but if we could secure some of the issues through legislation—presupposing the Bill gets through the House of Lords—we would not have to worry. The obligations would have to be met if they were in statute.
This is an important new clause and one for which I hope to achieve a degree of support across the Committee. Green and farmers organisations talked a lot, both in the oral evidence sessions and especially in written evidence, about the availability of food, who should have access to it and the need to recognise food poverty. We were disappointed that new clause 1 was not selected, because it would have provided an interesting debate on food poverty and who has access to good-quality, affordable food. If we cannot address that in an agriculture Bill, where can we do it? The Government should have started with a food strategy. It would have been sensible to move from that food strategy to the Agriculture Bill. The legislation would follow what we wanted to do with food, crucial as it is. Sadly, that has not transpired, so we have to do it this way.
The new clause is not particularly onerous. It does not ask the Government to do anything other than to report, but report they should, so that we know that we are moving in the right direction. The Bill is all about environmental standards and about changing the nature of the payment system—public money for public goods. Nothing could be more fundamental than deciding on what food is produced and for whom, on whether they can afford it, and on whether it can be distributed more efficiently.
I do not want to say much more at this stage. It is important for us to have a debate on the issue and to have some clarity on the Government’s thinking. If we had had a food strategy plan, as we have the environment 25-year plan, we would not have had to suggest an amendment to the Bill at this stage of its consideration. I hope the Government will at least recognise why we tabled our new clause. This is widely popular with not just the organisations but the public, who expect us to be doing such things. I hope that the Government will accept the change.
On affordability, dare I say it, even the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) has said that food supply and food security have been “taken for granted”, that that “needs to be highlighted” and that it is a lot “about home production”. If he says that, let us put it into the Bill so that we can show that what is widely accepted across the House is something on which we are prepared to legislate.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman highlights some important issues with the new clause but, as with new clause 8, I want to take this opportunity to explain to him the number of reports that we already produce. As I said earlier, DEFRA loves reports, and already collects a significant amount of information that is relevant to the availability of food and agricultural products.
For instance, our “Agriculture in the United Kingdom” report covers details of production volumes, production-to-supply ratios, and the origins of domestic consumption. The “Food Statistics Pocketbook” covers the economic, social and environmental aspects of the food that we eat; the data specifically track the origins of the food consumed in the UK. Regarding the cost of home-produced agricultural products, our family food survey has been running for over 75 years. It produces annual estimates of purchases by people in the UK and tracks food prices in the UK in real terms, including for products such as dairy, fruit, vegetables and meat. In addition, the FSA runs a survey on people’s food experiences, in particular whether they are finding it difficult to afford food.
Separately, we assess consumer attitudes to British food. For example, when surveyed, 60% of shoppers agree that they try to buy British food whenever they can. Next, we have DEFRA’s UK food security assessment, which is a regular assessment that takes place roughly every four to five years. It also analyses all aspects of food security, including production-to-supply ratios, resilience in the supply chain, affordability issues and consumer confidence.
It would be difficult to measure the specific impact of agriculture policy on the health and welfare of consumers, because many different factors drive people’s health outcomes and their relationship with food. However, other Departments already address that area. For instance, we already report on the overall health and welfare of consumers through Public Health England’s national diet and nutrition survey and the reports of its Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. There is a plethora of existing reports, published predominantly by DEFRA but also by Public Health England, addressing all of the issues identified in the proposed new clause.
However, I understand that the sentiment underlying the proposed new clause, and the reports that the hon. Member for Stroud is requesting, is that there is not enough about food in the Bill. We have heard representations of a similar nature from Conservative Members, and as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, similar representations were also made on Second Reading. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are giving a bit of thought to how we might address that concern during later stages of the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members who feel that there is not enough about food in the Bill—even though, as I have stated many times, I disagree—will welcome the fact that we have taken note of some of the points that have been raised.
Dr Drew
Progress! We are being listened to. I welcome what the Minister has said. Again, this is not something that we have just cooked up—excuse the pun. [Interruption.] I have to keep Members awake somehow. Food is pretty important to an agriculture Bill. I do not know whether the Minister wants to tell me how he will address this concern; I hope it is on Report, not in the House of Lords, because it drives me mad when the Lords get all the credit for these wonderful improvements, even though we have worked blooming hard on the Committee. We get turned over regularly, and the Lords get a wonderful improvement in how food is dealt with in the wording of the Bill. It is important that we persuade people that, through the Bill, there has been a change for the better. If food is in the Bill, the Opposition will be much happier—and I will just hint to the Minister that we would like a bit of a mention of health as well. The link between the nature of the production process and food and health is so important.
I was going to press the proposed new clause to a vote, but the Minister has completely dumbfounded me by saying that the Government are going to listen to what the Opposition have been saying for the past couple of weeks. I will not press it to a vote now, but I genuinely hope that the Minister will bring something forward on Report so that we can get some credit, and we will then work with the Government to make sure that the Bill goes through more successfully than it otherwise would have. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Iain Stewart.)
BACKBENCH bUSINESS
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Early Years Intervention
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
We begin with the Select Committee statement. Norman Lamb will speak on the publication of the Eleventh Report of the Science and Technology Committee, “Evidence-based early years intervention”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Norman Lamb to respond to each in turn. Normally, I would say that Members can only expect to be called once to ask a question, but in view of the lack of numbers here, I may be a little more generous.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I suspect there may be a drama unfolding elsewhere today, which limits the numbers in Westminster Hall. Nevertheless, I rise to make a statement following the publication this week of the report of my Committee—the Science and Technology Committee—on “Evidence-based early years intervention”.
Before I explain why we conducted this inquiry and set out our key findings, I thank all the organisations and individuals—there were more than a hundred in total—who provided us with written evidence, and the 26 individuals who gave oral evidence. This is very much an evidence-based report and it would not have been possible without their input.
Around one in every two adults in the UK has suffered at least one adverse childhood experience, which could have been abuse, neglect or growing up in some other difficult situation, such as in a household where someone suffers from substance abuse problems or domestic violence. The trauma that such experiences cause the child is tragedy enough. However, there is now strong evidence to demonstrate that those who suffer such experiences as a child are significantly more likely to encounter further problems in later life—problems such as mental or physical ill health, worklessness or involvement with the criminal justice system. Risk increases with increased exposure to adversity. Paragraph 7 of our report says that,
“surveys by Public Health Wales have reported a significantly increased prevalence of problems including health-harming behaviour, poor mental wellbeing and chronic disease among those who had suffered four or more adverse childhood experiences compared to those who had suffered none.”
However, that need not be the case. Early intervention is an approach that aims to address these problems before they become significant and difficult to overcome. It can take the form of parenting programmes, behavioural classes for children, or programmes supporting early years child development, among other things. We know that it works. The Early Intervention Foundation has reviewed studies of over 118 early intervention programmes and found that 45 of them demonstrated robust evidence of positive impact. Similarly, the Children and Parents Service in Manchester has real-world evidence showing that early intervention can significantly reduce a child’s risk of neglect or abuse—in other words, it can stop the trauma from happening in the first place.
As well as transforming lives, early intervention can save taxpayers’ money. The Early Intervention Foundation has estimated that the cost of “late” intervention—in other words, not intervening early—is at least £16.6 billion every year, and that is without taking into account the positive economic impact of people living more fulfilled lives.
The Scottish and Welsh Governments and some local authorities in England have made early intervention to address childhood adversity and trauma a priority. However, the Government in Westminster have not yet seized the opportunity. Instead, local authorities in England are essentially left to their own devices, without central support or scrutiny. We know that pockets of good practice exist, but the Early Intervention Foundation told us that it experiences
“lots of examples where we see a gap between what we know from robust, peer-reviewed literature and what happens in local services and systems”.
With fragmented and variable delivery of early intervention across England, vulnerable children are being horribly failed around the country. That is why my Committee is urging the Government to draw up a national strategy on early intervention, to empower and encourage local authorities to deliver effective, sustainable and evidence-based early intervention.
In addition to providing the impetus to seize the opportunity of early intervention, the national strategy should address several major challenges that we heard that local authorities face in delivering evidence-based early intervention. Among those challenges are, first, that awareness of the impact of childhood adversity and how it can be addressed could be greater among those who work with children. So the early years workforce should be, first, defined, and then training should be reviewed to ensure that this workforce has the knowledge that they need to be effective in their work.
Secondly, the collection and analysis of appropriate data can help to identify those families who would benefit from early intervention, as well as providing insight on how well different early intervention approaches are working. The national strategy should identify what data ought to be collected and support local authorities in delivering data-driven services. At the moment, the early years are almost like a data-free zone. It is an extraordinary situation that, as children and adults grow, we collect an enormous amount of data about them nationally, including in the school system. We have an understanding of what is going on later, but in the early years there is no national data—it is fascinating. Therefore, the problem is that we are spending a lot of public money without knowing whether it is being spent effectively.
Thirdly, the strategy should make use of the growing field of implementation science to maximise the chances of success for efforts to deliver effective and sustainable early intervention. We want a central specialist team to be set up in the Early Intervention Foundation to help local authorities to deliver the national strategy and apply the evidence of what we know works around the country.
Some improvements to the delivery of early intervention in England can be made without requiring substantial new funding; no doubt that is music to the ears of the Minister for School Standards, who is present. Nevertheless, the Government should recognise the long-term cost savings available through effective early intervention and be willing to make the upfront investments now, so that we can save money in the long run. The new strategy should seek to drive a general shift in the focus of current expenditure on late interventions, which are inevitably less effective, so that we focus more on earlier intervention.
Some programmes are already in place that aim to identify families that are in need of support and that help to provide that support. Foremost among them is the Healthy Child programme, under which every child should receive five mandatory health visits before the age of three. However, Public Health England statistics show that, other than the newborn visit, only around 80% of children receive such visits. Without this interaction with health visitors, opportunities to identify families who would benefit from support are missed. The Government must set out a clear strategy to show how they intend to increase coverage of the five mandated visits to 100%. They must also make sure that such a strategy does not simply increase the strain on the health-visiting workforce, thereby diluting the impact that they can have on each family.
We also call upon the Government to state clearly their position on the future of the Sure Start programme and children’s centres. A consultation on these centres was announced in 2015, but it has still not been launched. In the meantime, Ofsted’s regular inspections of these centres have been suspended, pending the outcome of the consultation, which has not happened yet. Local authorities need clarity about the future of these centres. If the Government intend to hold a consultation, they should launch it within the next three months.
To conclude, early intervention that is used to tackle childhood adversity can transform lives and save costs to the Government—a win-win. There is now a pressing need for a fundamental shift in the Government’s approach to early intervention, targeting childhood adversity and trauma, and applying the evidence of what we know works. The Government should match the ambition of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and build on the example set by a number of English local authorities, to make early intervention and childhood adversity a priority, and to set out a clear national strategy by the end of this parliamentary Session to empower and encourage local authorities to deliver effective, sustainable and evidence-based early intervention.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
I now invite questions. I stress that they should be questions, not speeches.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). He rightly said that the Scottish Government already have a strategic plan in place. In fact, they held a conference recently on adverse childhood experiences, and that issue is at the core of what they are trying to do. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech that he did not think additional funding, or much additional funding, would be required to carry out this plan. However, at a time when so many local authorities in England are failing and overspending their children’s budget, does he think that this is actually going to happen?
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I applaud the Scottish Government, the NHS in Scotland, and the Scottish schools system for grasping this nettle, understanding what the evidence shows, and acting upon it. We say in the report that there are things local authorities can do now without any additional funding, and in a way, that is demonstrated by the fact that some local authorities are doing them. Those local authorities are looking at the evidence and applying it, and using the money that they have in the most effective way. I particularly applaud Greater Manchester for that. Dr Caroline White, who leads the Children and Parents Service in Greater Manchester, acted as expert adviser to the Committee inquiry. A lot can be learned from places such as Greater Manchester.
However, the Committee also makes the point to Government that there is a prize to be won if we invest more in effective early intervention: not only transforming lives, but saving money for the state further down the track. It is a powerful case of “invest to save”, and I want to indicate to the Minister—I do not know whether he intends to say something—that I am really keen to work with the Departments on this. It is not in any way a party political issue: there is a strong consensus on our Committee in support of the sort of action we are calling for. We could achieve a real gain by applying the evidence that we demonstrate in the report to make a difference to children’s lives, and I am keen to work collaboratively to make that happen.
Anti-bullying Week
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered anti-bullying week 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate. I am also grateful that we are able to have this debate during Anti-bullying Week, as was made possible last year when a similar debate was secured by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). Obviously, today is quite a busy day for many parliamentary colleagues, so I fear that some of the Members who I had expected to be with us will not be here, but it is important that we mark Anti-bullying Week in this way.
Like many constituency Members, many of my Fridays are spent visiting local schools—I should think all colleagues do that. I try to visit a school every Friday, and I find that they are all trying very hard to create an environment in which children feel safe, supported, and free from bullying. Just last week, I visited Shirley Community Primary School and had some wonderful conversations with the staff and the children, who were running around a field doing the daily mile. I have to say that they were rather better at it than I was, but it was still good to get some exercise. However, despite all the hard work that teachers are doing, it is important that we spend some time considering the challenges that we face in our schools, and particularly how we teach our children to treat each other. This week provides an opportunity for people to reflect on that question, and creates a space for staff and students to have those conversations about how we treat one another—conversations that are sometimes difficult.
Anti-bullying Week is organised by the Anti-Bullying Alliance, which is a fantastic coalition of anti-bullying charities. Anti-bullying Week reaches 75% of schools in England, touching over 6 million children and young people. It was excellent to see the splendid event organised at Speaker’s House yesterday, which a number of people came here to celebrate. Anti-bullying Week involves many charities, youth organisations and schools, and is used to provide the resources and tools to raise awareness. This year, there have been specific events on particular days, and today is “Stop Speak Support”—cyber-bullying day.
As we all know, sadly, with the rise of social media and technology, a whole range of new challenges has come along. The playground no longer stops when the bell goes. Whereas these issues could once have been dealt with in class, they now extend well beyond the playground, often on the way home and outside school. Sadly, one in five teenagers has experienced cyber-bullying in just the past two months, and children who have been cyber-bullied are more likely than their peers to be lonely, anxious or depressed. I think we are all aware of the rising numbers of young people who are presenting with mental health issues. It is right that the Government are tackling that problem, but of course, it is not just the Government who should respond to it. Social media companies must also take some responsibility and create the kinds of environments in which respectful conduct is required, especially for children.
Section 103 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 requires the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to publish a code of practice for providers of online social media platforms. That is good, but we also have to make sure that that code of practice is enforced, and sadly, it seems at times that it is not being enforced sufficiently well. Facebook, for example, has faced criticism in recent months for pushing back its targets for tackling cyber-bullying. I believe that those mega-corporations can be a power for good, but they also have to take responsibility for maintaining acceptable practices on their platforms.
The Diana Award, which is an anti-bullying charity, runs the Be Strong Online ambassador programme, which empowers students and staff to take a peer-led approach to digital resilience and helps teach young people to explore the digital world safely. It is good to hear that since 2016, over 1,200 young people and staff members have been trained as Be Strong Online ambassadors. That is an example of how we can help improve schools across the board and work with social media companies to improve the quality of our online interactions.
My interest in and awareness of this topic came not just from having been a school governor and chair of governors in a past life—like, I suspect, many of my colleagues—but from a strong constituency link with Red Balloon, one of the most highly respected charities working in this field. That charity runs learning centres and schools for bullied children. It was created 22 years ago by a constituent of mine, Dr Carrie Herbert, who is a real force of nature and a force for change. She started that charity—in her own kitchen—when she saw some of the problems that children were facing, and the charity’s story featured in national newspapers over the weekend.
I will say a little about the report that was in The Guardian on Saturday. One particular young person was prepared to tell her story, and in many ways it probably speaks for many others. Hannah Letters, who is 17, explained:
“I struggled with the transition to secondary school”—
we are all aware that that is a problem in many cases—
“and found it hard to make friends.”
This is very sad to read, but:
“She was sent messages on social media, telling her that no one liked her. ‘One of the girls turned and said to me, “If you had looked after your mother better, she wouldn’t have got cancer.”’”
That is an awful thing to say to any child. She said:
“I had such low self-esteem by then, anything she said I believed. I started to blame myself.”
By the time she was 13, she was self-harming. The article states:
“The bullies were constantly on her mind and she would wake up screaming from nightmares.”
That is a terrible story, but sadly it is not unique.
Hannah was not particularly happy with the response she got from her school. In a familiar cycle, each time she or her mother complained, the bullying got worse. The article continues:
“When the bullies physically attacked her, it was the last straw for Letters’ mother. She took her off the school roll. That meant her school was absolved of its legal responsibility to provide her with an education. She became yet another statistic: one of the 16,000 children aged 11 to 15 who…‘self-exclude’ from school due to bullying.”
That is where Red Balloon came in.
Hannah joined Red Balloon three years ago, and enrolled in its education programmes and received help with wellbeing support. She is planning on studying medicine at university. That is a huge turnaround from the situation she found herself in a few years ago, and it is not a unique story: Red Balloon turns around the lives of students every year, but it is almost a unique service, and here is the rub. The evidence from such institutions as Red Balloon shows that intervention works—it really does—but the truth is that it is also very expensive.
Although intervention looks expensive up front, in the long term it is almost certainly cheaper to intervene and make the difference that Red Balloon can make. For most local authorities, the amounts of money required to put in that intervention would be unthinkable in the current context. In fact, they do not release the money they would have been spending on that education. That is perhaps understandable, given that many find themselves in dire straits. While I suspect we will hear some warm words this afternoon, the real truth is that, although we can see what works, our choice as a society is not to do it, and that should weigh heavily on us. In the meantime, until we can do better, we must support schools to tackle bullying on a daily basis.
Mainstream education must be able to teach children how to treat each other with respect, not just how to pass exams. I suspect there might not be complete agreement with what I am about to say, but my sense is that many schools are increasingly pressured to focus on exams. Many are forced to limit the subjects they offer due to funding pressures. It has been controversial over recent years, but schools have been able to give less attention to some subjects because of the English baccalaureate. In some cases, the decline of the opportunity to take part in arts education can have possibly unintended consequences.
In recent weeks, teachers and academics have written to me with their concerns about their students’ opportunities to develop creative skills and self-expression, which are vital for getting them into work and university, for being part of the community and for expressing themselves. I suspect that taking arts education out of school education can reduce the opportunity for the discussions that arise around the arts, such as how we relate to each other and the kind of society we want to live in.
Returning to the positive, Anti-bullying Week offers schools the opportunity to engage in those discussions and provides the kind of platform on which children can think further about those very important questions, which do not always appear on exam papers.
This year, Anti-bullying Week has the theme “Choose Respect”. It encourages us to own our behaviour and to remember that we all have a choice in how we behave and that respecting each other is an active choice. In school, we should learn how to relate to those who agree with us and those who do not, and to those from different backgrounds and those with different interests. We take those skills with us into our futures and use them for the rest of our lives.
Elizabeth Nassem, a researcher at Birmingham City University, wrote in The Guardian a few months ago:
“Any school trying to tackle bullying needs to look beyond the ‘bully’ and ‘victim’ labels. Instead, it’s helpful to consider bullying as a spectrum of negative interactions that range from mild to severe, such as name-calling and hitting. Ask the children in your school about their experiences of bullying, why children might bully others, and how they think bullying should be addressed…Teachers should consistently speak to children respectfully, listen to children, respond to their views and take time to understand their perspectives. Pupils are then more likely to then do the same with their peers.”
That fits in very well with this year’s Anti-bullying Week theme of “Choose Respect”.
There is also a need to look at the disproportionate amount of bullying that some particular groups experience, including disabled children and those with special educational needs, as well as those who experience bullying based on race and faith. Looked-after children and young carers also suffer disproportionately. By having discussions at school about bullying, and how children can work to choose respect, I hope that can be addressed.
One section of society that is sadly all too often the victim of bullying is people with disabilities. According to the charity Leonard Cheshire Disability, 30% of disabled adults in the UK say they have experienced hostile behaviour motivated by their disability. That is three in 10. That is a distressing statistic and the impact can be chilling, with concern about hostile behaviour reportedly preventing one disabled adult in three from going out in their local area. That makes loneliness and isolation even worse.
There are things that can be done. Since 2014, Leonard Cheshire has run a successful scheme in Northern Ireland with the police to support disability hate crime survivors. It is called, “Be Safe Stay Safe”, and it provides independent advocacy support from qualified, experienced advocates to victims and witnesses of disability hate crime to ensure accessibility to the police and the wider criminal justice system. Will the Minister look at how that experience could be transferred to the rest of the United Kingdom?
Others who also suffer include those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender; ethnic or faith minorities; young carers; and looked-after children. The Anti-Bullying Alliance found that one child in four aged from seven to 15 reports being frequently bullied, while more than a third of disabled children and those with special educational needs are victims of regular bullying. Nearly half of school pupils say that their friends use discriminatory language towards LGBT people. Last year, a poll by the Diana Award found that 61% of school staff had witnessed racism-driven bullying. That is totally unacceptable, and it shows that even in 2018 we have a long way to go to stamp out racism entirely in our schools.
The Anti-Bullying Alliance is calling for urgent action to protect children at higher risk of bullying, and for mental health and wellbeing leads in each school, as proposed in the Green Paper on mental health, so as to have a responsibility to prevent bullying. The alliance thinks, and I agree, that that should be part of a co-ordinated, whole-school approach. While today’s debate is not party political, I gently make the point that these things all require resourcing. The relatively paltry amounts made available in the Budget are unlikely to stretch across all the existing pressures that schools face alongside such new initiatives. If we are going to do it, it has to be funded properly; otherwise, it will fall on already very stretched teachers.
The issue has been addressed by Government and Opposition MPs. By law, all state schools must have a behaviour policy in place that includes measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. That policy is, of course, decided by the school, and all teachers, pupils and parents should be told about it. The Government have said that the Department for Education is working with schools to help them to create an atmosphere of respect that will reduce bullying behaviour both offline and online. I understand that the Minister has written in the Telegraph on the need for effective anti-bullying policies both online and offline. There is clearly widespread understanding of the issues.
I hope that we hear from the Minister that he will seek extra funding from his colleagues to support schools in their attempts to tackle these deep-seated and important issues. We will have a spending review next year, and it is hard to imagine a more important issue that could be addressed to tackle long-term societal problems. I welcome the opportunity to hear from the Minister so that, on what has been a complicated day in this place, he can give some good news to bring us to the end of Anti-bullying Week.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate, raising awareness and championing the cause of eradicating bullying.
It is Anti-bullying Week, and the theme is to choose respect. As the hon. Gentleman rightly outlined, the prevalence of bullying is increasing, including online and cyber-bullying where the bullying never ends. It does not end when children leave the playground or leave school; it continues. The devastating impact that that has on the mental health of young people should not be forgotten. He also rightly spoke of the tragic experience of one of his young constituents, and I am sure that many more people could speak to that experience.
Although today much of the debate and news coverage will be about Brexit and the next Cabinet Minister to resign, someone, somewhere, is experiencing bullying right now. Whether in the playground or the workplace, bullying affects people from all different backgrounds, and those at different stages and ages in life. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I fully support today’s debate. Brexit reigns strong, but we must continue to use this House to discuss important issues that affect people every day.
The SNP takes bullying very seriously, and believes that there is no place in Scotland for prejudice or discrimination. Core to that is the belief that everyone deserves to be treated fairly and that bullying of any kind is therefore unacceptable. Where it occurs it must be addressed quickly and effectively. In schools, it often falls on headteachers, teachers and local authorities to decide how bullying is tackled.
The Scottish Government expect all schools to develop and implement an anti-bullying policy, which should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The hon. Member for Cambridge spoke about the experience in England. I can speak only of the Scottish Government’s experience and responsibilities. They have ensured that schools have an anti-bullying policy, which should be at the heart of every whole-school approach to create a positive and welcoming ethos. We want all young people to learn tolerance, respect, equality and good citizenship to address and prevent prejudice, as well as to build healthy relationships.
Bullying can take many forms, and can be based on prejudices. That is why the Scottish Government have been working with the campaign Time for Inclusive Education. I give credit to Jordan and Liam, who have worked tirelessly with the Scottish Government to push forward on the campaign to ensure that schools deal with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex bullying, discrimination and prejudice. That is why the SNP Scottish Government will now include LGBT rights in the Scottish curriculum, which will send a strong message throughout the world that Scotland is a progressive country and that bullying will not be tolerated.
In November 2017, the Scottish Government published their anti-bullying guidance: “Respect for All: The National Approach to Anti-Bullying for Scotland’s Children and Young People”. The guidance provides a holistic approach to anti-bullying that makes it clear that all types of bullying are unacceptable, and that adults involved in young people’s lives have a role to play in preventing and responding to bullying. It includes guidance on prejudice-based bullying, recording and monitoring of online and offline bullying, labelling, and the impact and outcomes of bullying.
We believe that the focus must be on prevention and early intervention, and I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Cambridge: that requires resources and funding, and cannot be achieved otherwise. It must also be reflected in anti-bullying policies. However, it is one thing to have a policy; ensuring that it is implemented in practice is very different.
The most successful interventions are embedded within a positive ethos and inclusive culture. Such interventions are more likely to achieve positive outcomes and destinations for young people. I am hopeful that with anti-bullying guidance and LGBT-inclusive education in Scotland we will begin to shape the attitudes of young people in Scotland, encouraging them to celebrate their differences. Inclusive education is essential to all young people, and it is high time that we created the conditions for a culture of inclusion and understanding of the impact of prejudice and discrimination. Implementing such policies will go some way to securing that.
We also see bullying in workplaces, including this one. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Dame Laura Cox report, which was a damning indictment of the culture of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in Parliament. With the report, and the working group led by the Leader of the House, we have seen just how pervasive the toxic culture of bullying and harassment is within Parliament and politics more widely. It is important that we recognise that not only MPs’ staff, but many staff who work in various capacities across the House and across Parliament, are on the receiving end of such behaviour.
The SNP fully accepts and supports the need for urgent change in this place, because ultimately, people should practise what they preach. We must set a gold standard for workplaces, and ensure that other businesses and sectors across the country can emulate and follow the guidance and practices that we implement here. In that regard, Parliament has lately let people down, but that can be rectified by challenging any form of workplace bullying and harassment, particularly in Parliament. Until we get that right, we are not in a position to preach or to tell anyone else how they should manage their workplace. By ensuring that everyone here works together with dignity and respect, we can start to change the workplace culture in this place, and we can start truly to lead by example.
As the hon. Member for Cambridge rightly highlighted, this subject touches on the lives of all people, whether they are LGBT, disabled, from faith backgrounds, of different races, young carers or looked-after children. It affects a wide variety of young people from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences, but I wanted to touch on a particular case, because when bullying is not tackled effectively there are tragic consequences.
That is what happened in the case of 12-year-old Rachel Steven from Burnbank in Hamilton, who attended St John Ogilvie High School, which happens to be my old high school. Although the school lies outside my constituency —in that of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen)—I am sure he would support me in saying that I am particularly invested in this case.
St John Ogilvie High School was the school I grew up in, and I would like to think that any young person could aspire to come to this place too. Sadly, Rachel, who was described as a “lively, bright young girl” by her headteacher, took her own life in September this year. It is alleged that Rachel had been taunted by bullies for years, and for her to have taken such extreme action to escape the bullies shows just how difficult life can be for such victims. It is incumbent on us all to do our part to try to eradicate bullying, take seriously any reports of bullying that come to us and remember how deeply bullies can affect their victims.
No one should be made to feel like that and no young person should take their own life to escape that experience. In an ideal world, no one would experience bullying. Let us seek to make that ideal a reality. In Parliament, we are responsible for implementing policy and legislation, and for leading by example. More could always be done to eradicate bullying, and we have more to do in this place. I hope that the Minister, in responding to this debate on Anti-bullying Week, will commit to what more he can do to ensure that bullying in schools and workplaces is eradicated, and that workplace culture is changed.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, on quite a momentous day in Parliament. If I may tease the Minister gently, let me say that it is great to see at least one Minister left in place. When I came in today, I saw on social media the headline “May resigns”, but then I realised that it was about Paul May, chief executive of Patisserie Valerie—so the Minister can rest easy for a few more minutes.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is passionate about the subject and is a great representative for his university town. This is a timely debate; as the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) said, online bullying is a horrible thing. Holding public office in Parliament, which she spoke about, is a real gift.
There are two types of power: power over people and power with people. Power over people is the worst form of coercion that can be exercised by anyone, especially when it comes from elected officials. It has all the elements of bullying: it is aggressive, belittling and coercive. I am sure that the Minister agrees—as you do, Mr Bailey—that in this place we have to do more to root it out, because people should be treated with respect and dignity in the workplace.
To give an example, we display Parliament’s new anti-bullying policy in my constituency office in Manchester. It occasionally forms part of our team meeting, so that we can make sure that we treat one another and our constituents with respect and dignity, and that they treat us in the same way. We will neither kowtow to people who bully us, nor bully them. Poor behaviours should be pointed out. Many staff in this place have suffered horrendously over the past few years, and I look forward to the day when we take a more collegiate approach. It is not just about how we stop bullying, but about how we deal with it when it happens. How this mother of Parliaments cleans up its own act will be key.
The theme of this year’s Anti-bullying Week is “Choose Respect”. It is centred around the fact that bullying is a behaviour choice, and that children and young people can set a positive example by opting to respect each other at school, in their homes and communities and online. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for coming forward and sharing his own personal experience of bullying—seven years of being punched in the face, kicked down the stairs and mentally tortured so badly that he had three breakdowns. It was not until he was assaulted so badly that the police were called that he felt able, as a vulnerable teenager, to speak up.
As my hon. Friend’s personal story so eloquently portrays, bullying can be devastating for the victim. It permeates every minute of every single day, even when the victim is not in the presence of those who are causing them harm. Bullying is intensified when it happens in a school environment, because in any given school day there will be times when no teacher or staff member is present to spot it and stop it. Nor is it confined to physical space, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge points out: an estimated 5.43 million young people in the UK have experienced cyber-bullying, with 1.26 million subjected daily to extreme cyber-bullying.
The Department for Education’s guidance for schools, headteachers, staff and governing bodies on preventing and tackling bullying states:
“Every school must have measures in place to prevent all forms of bullying.”
However, does the Minister really think that schools can invest in strategies to prevent bullying, when across the country—including in the Prime Minister’s constituency—they are having to write to parents to ask for resources? As a result of cuts, they have fewer adults in the classroom to provide essential teaching support. Larger class sizes mean that children do not get as much attention as they used to.
I suspect that the Government do not have a statistical database, but statistics suggest that more than 16,000 young people are absent from school because of bullying. Bullying has a huge impact on young people’s self-esteem, and 30% of young people have gone on to self-harm as a result. Perhaps most devastatingly of all, 10% of young people have attempted to commit suicide as a result of bullying. The impacts of bullying continue to ripple out long after young people have escaped their tormentors; those who have been bullied are more than twice as likely to have difficulty in keeping a job or in committing to saving.
The sad reality is that some children who need mental health support as a result of bullying will leave school and move into adulthood without ever getting it, because our mental health services are also in a funding crisis. Looked-after children are reported to experience bullying at a much higher rate than their peers. Almost every single looked- after child has already endured some form of trauma, and at least 45% enter care with a diagnosable mental health condition. As the Government are now presiding over the largest number of children in care since the 1980s—in March 2017 it reached 72,670—can the Minister explain what the Department for Education is doing to provide specialist support for them when they are subjected to bullying?
Children with disabilities or special educational needs also experience bullying at a higher rate than others, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out. The long-held view, which dates right back to the Education Act 1981 and is supported by Ofsted, is that well-resourced mainstream schools are best placed to improve the learning and social environment for disabled and non-disabled learners alike. Children with special educational needs are increasingly being pushed out of mainstream schools; recent figures suggest that 19,000 children were off-rolled between years 10 and 11, and the Government do not know where 10,000 of them went on to. In this day and age, when we are much more aware of child sexual exploitation and child criminal exploitation, those figures are very worrying indeed.
In 2016, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the Government’s compliance with the UN convention on the rights of the child and found that they were failing in 150 areas across the board. What has the Minister done to address that since the committee’s report?
It is estimated that one child in every single class experiences severe bullying. I know that the Minister agrees that that is one child too many. Speaking as a former primary school teacher, I know that children will have woken up this morning feeling sick at the thought of going to school because of the fear of the damage that their bullies will wreak on them throughout the day. Some will never have made it to school at all, while others will have spent the whole day anxious and unable to concentrate in class.
We go into teaching because we believe in the value of education and in its power to create social mobility and ambition for all. I hope that the Minister will share with us how he intends to ensure that no child has to experience bullying, and that all children can reap the full benefits that a good education can provide. I hope that he will share in the theme of Anti-bullying Week by choosing to respect our schools and teachers and giving them the resource and support that they need to beat the bullies.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. As he and all hon. Members present know, and as we have heard today, particularly from the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), bullying can have a devastating effect on children and their families.
I offer my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Rachel Steven. Every death of a child is a tragedy. I cannot comment on Scottish procedure, but in England all child deaths, including suicides, will be reviewed by the local authority and the clinical commissioning group, which will analyse what has happened and ensure that any necessary recommendations or changes are made as a consequence of the tragedy.
We must not let up on our efforts to eradicate bullying. Anti-bullying Week gives us an opportunity to maintain focus on this important issue and highlight the positive things that we can all do to help stamp out bullying. Every child’s experience at school should be a happy one. We want schools to be safe, calm places in which teachers can teach uninterrupted and pupils can succeed.
The Government have sent a clear message to schools that bullying—for whatever reason—is unacceptable, and that they need the right tools to tackle it. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said in his opening remarks, all schools are legally required to have a behaviour policy with measures to prevent all forms of bullying. We have ensured that schools have a range of powers and support to help them respond effectively when bullying takes place.
We know that bullying still happens, and that it can have serious and long-lasting effects on children’s education and mental health. Tackling bullying means creating a culture where difference is respected and bullying behaviour is not tolerated by staff, pupils and parents. That is why the theme of this Anti-bullying Week—“Choose Respect”—is so important. There are pupils who are more likely to be targeted because of some young people’s attitudes towards those who are different from themselves, which is not the way it should be. That is why, earlier this year, the Department for Education announced an additional £1 million investment to extend projects led by several anti-bullying organisations until March 2020—the end of the spending review period. That work will support schools to stamp out prejudice and discrimination.
That investment will enable the Anti-Bullying Alliance, which does a phenomenal job, to extend its All Together programme, which focuses on reducing bullying of children with special educational needs and disabilities. It will support a further 300 schools to gain All Together status and provide certified online training for 10,000 professionals. The Anne Frank Trust will further develop its Free to Be debate programme, which encourages young people to think about the importance of tackling prejudice, discrimination and bullying. Over the 18-month extension, it will reach an additional 825 ambassadors and more than 8,000 workshop participants. The Diana Award will extend its peer-to-peer anti-bullying ambassadors programme, training an additional 2,750 young people from a further 270 schools in England over 18 months. As ambassadors, these young people will lead campaigns to empower their student body to have mutual respect for each other and to engage in good, anti-bullying practice.
Earlier this year we also extended the Internet Matters project, which will now run its Make a Noise programme until January 2019. That project supports the reporting of bullying to schools via the tootoot online platform. All four of our grant-funded projects include cyber-bullying as an integral element, and last week the Minister for Women and Equalities announced a further £1 million to extend the anti-homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying programme, which has reached 1,200 schools since 2016.
I had the pleasure of attending the Anti-Bullying Alliance’s parliamentary reception in Speaker’s House yesterday, which I think the hon. Member for Cambridge also attended. That event celebrated Anti-bullying Week and inspired an audience—including fellow Members of Parliament, policy makers, teachers and young people —to take action and unite against bullying. I was proud to present the Anti-Bullying Alliance school staff awards to two remarkable individuals who have gone above and beyond in their school to tackle and stop bullying: Mrs Watkiss from Blue Coat Church of England Academy, and Miss Durrant, a learning mentor from Emerson Valley School.
We know that schools that excel at tackling bullying have created an ethos of good behaviour, where pupils treat each other and staff with respect because they know that it is the right way to behave. This week, the Department for Education published a tool to support schools to develop whole-school approaches that promote respect and discipline. By providing practical advice, guidance and good practice examples of how schools can develop and implement an approach that is shared by the whole school community, the tool builds on the recommendations in Tom Bennett’s independent review of behaviour in schools, “Creating a culture: how school leaders can optimise behaviour”.
A good school culture that sets a clear structure and clear expectations for pupils can go hand in hand with acknowledging differences. A school where good behaviour and respect is the norm can help teachers to identify and support pupils who might have underlying problems, so alongside the tool we have published an update to our advice on mental health and behaviour in schools. This will help schools to identify pupils whose behaviour might result from an underlying mental health difficulty, and to direct schools towards information about how they can adapt their approaches to support those pupils’ individual needs within the context of an approach that is based on clear expectations of behaviour.
It is important also that a respectful school culture permeates every aspect of school life, including what is taught in the classroom. The new mandatory subjects of relationships education, relationships and sex education, and health education will enable schools to deliver high-quality teaching, including on acceptable ways to behave, both online and off, as part of their whole-school approach. The consultation on the draft guidance and regulations closed last week, and we are currently considering the responses; we plan to lay the regulations next year. Under the content for respectful relationships, the draft guidance sets out that pupils should know about the different types of bullying, the impact that it has, the responsibility of bystanders, and how to get help.
As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, today is the first time that Anti-bullying Week has featured a dedicated anti-cyber-bullying day, which is supported by the Royal Foundation’s taskforce on the prevention of cyber-bullying. The aim of Stop Speak Support Day is to highlight the issue of cyber-bullying, which we know affects so many children in our schools, as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) said. Cyber-bullying is not just a way to bully others anonymously; it can be a means by which face-to-face bullying between pupils at the same school is extended beyond the school day.
Bullying can also start online and follow a child into school. In these circumstances, the effects of cyber-bullying can be felt within the school. Just like face-to-face bullying, it can have repercussions on behaviour during lessons and throughout the school day. For that reason, the Department for Education has already put in place a number of powers and a range of support to enable schools to prevent and tackle cyber-bullying. Teachers have the power to discipline pupils for poor behaviour that takes place outside the school gates, and we have extended teachers’ searching powers so that they can search for and, in certain circumstances, delete inappropriate images or files on electronic devices.
Through the new mandatory subjects of relationships education and relationships and sex education, pupils will be taught about internet safety and harm, including the effects of their online actions on others and knowing how to recognise and display respectful behaviour online. This will complement the computing curriculum, which covers the principles of e-safety at all key stages. The content progresses to reflect the different and escalating risks that young people face, including how to use technology safely, responsibly, respectfully and securely, and where to go for help and support when students have concerns about content or contact on the internet or other online technologies.
We are committed to strengthening the teaching of computing and computer science in schools, so we have launched a new, comprehensive programme to improve the teaching of computing and to drive up participation in computer science, particularly amongst girls. This includes a new national centre for computing and a network of at least 40 hubs throughout the country to support schools to provide resources and training—including elements of e-safety—to primary and secondary schools. The centre will start working with schools this year, and it is backed by £84 million of new funding, which was announced in November 2017.
Children’s online life goes beyond what schools can control and influence. Their efforts need to be backed up by a responsible approach from those who provide social media, taking responsibility for what happens when children use their services. There is a range of other work taking place across Government to help tackle cyber-bullying, including the forthcoming joint White Paper from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office, which sits at the heart of the Government’s response to tackling online harm. The White Paper will be published in the winter and sets out a range of legislative and non-legislative measures that detail how we will tackle online harms.
The hon. Member for Cambridge raised the issue of social media companies and the social media code of practice. As he knows, we published the draft code of practice in May and are continuing to engage with social media providers and others to refine the statutory practice with clear, overarching principles and separate best-practice guidance. Another key message of this year’s Anti-bullying Week is that bullying is a behaviour choice, as the hon. Member for Cambridge also mentioned. We want to ensure that all teachers are equipped with the skills to tackle the serious behaviour issues that compromise the safety and wellbeing of pupils, as well as the low-level disruption that too often gets in the way of effective teaching. We are reforming training so that all teachers will be shown in their first two years in the profession how to manage behaviour effectively. Last month, we announced a £10 million programme to support schools to share best practice and knowledge on behaviour management and classroom management.
We know that bullying can have a serious effect on mental health. Children who suffer bullying can face higher rates of anxiety, depression and self-harm in adulthood. The Department has committed to supporting schools and colleges to promote good mental wellbeing in children, providing a supportive environment for those experiencing problems and securing access to more specialist help for those who need it. The Government’s response to the consultation on our green paper, “Transforming children and young people’s mental health provision”, confirmed our commitment to provide significant further support linked to schools. We will incentivise and support all schools and colleges to identify and train a designated senior lead for mental health, to deliver whole-school approaches to promoting better mental health. The Government will also fund new mental health support teams, or units, which will improve collaboration between schools and specialist services, providing a wider range of support and interventions in or near schools and colleges. These teams will be linked to groups of schools and colleges, and will work closely with other mental health professionals to assess and refer children for other specialist treatments if necessary.
I am grateful for the support that the hon. Member for Cambridge has given to this issue this year. The Government are committed to preventing and tackling bullying, but we know we cannot do that alone. We continue to work with schools and partner organisations to ensure that schools are a safe place for all. I am proud to be a supporter of Anti-bullying Week. I pledge to always choose respect, and I encourage other hon. Members to do the same.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank colleagues for the positive, constructive tone of the debate and for the very thoughtful contributions. The contribution of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) widened the issue to workplace bullying. The all-party parliamentary group on bullying, which I chair, concentrates very much on bullying in schools, but there is of course no doubt that what is learned at school will hopefully go forward in future and help us to do better, whether here or in other workplaces. I absolutely agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). The cases he raised should give us all pause for thought.
Most of all I congratulate the Anti-Bullying Alliance, led by Martha Evans and her colleagues at the National Children’s Bureau. This has become a major event each year for schools and is a fantastic opportunity, as I said in my opening comments, for constructive conversations of the kind that may not always be possible throughout the rest of the year. Today, given the discussions we are having about wider issues and the place of our country in the world, “Choose Respect” could not be a better way of promoting dialogue and constructive conversation. I am sure that on a cross-party basis we can agree to congratulate all those involved, to wish everyone well who has been involved in the campaign during the week, and to make sure that we do everything we can to eliminate bullying in schools and workplaces in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Anti-Bullying Week 2018.
Written Statements
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Criminal Justice System: Disclosure
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)
Today, carrying forward the work of my predecessor, I have published the results of the Government’s review of the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure in the criminal justice system. This has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper (Cm 9735), and copies are available in the Vote Office and on gov.uk.
The disclosure of unused material in criminal cases, under the statutory framework of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, is a central pillar of the right to a fair trial and a fundamental part of our criminal justice system in England and Wales. My review of disclosure builds on the operational response by the police and Crown Prosecution Service to the challenges of disclosure under the National Disclosure Improvement Plan. The review sets out the next phase of reforms to deliver sustainable change for the long term.
The review identifies the following cross-system themes and makes recommendations for improvement in respect of each of them:
1. Primary legislation continues to provide an appropriate disclosure regime, but in practice the system is not working as effectively or efficiently as it should;
2. Practical reinforcement of the duty to make reasonable lines of inquiry and apply the disclosure test correctly;
3. Pursuing a fair investigation and considering disclosure obligations from the outset, rather than as an afterthought;
4. Proportionate “frontloading” of disclosure preparation and performance;
5. Early and meaningful engagement with disclosure issues by the defence and the judiciary;
6. Harnessing Technology;
7. Data and Management Information;
8. Continuous, sustained oversight and improvement.
These themes reflect the systemic nature of the management of disclosure and the importance of everyone involved—including the police, prosecutors and the defence community—playing their part effectively.
Cases that are stopped and convictions that are quashed because of serious deficiencies in disclosure are neither fair to the complainant nor the defendant and they undermine public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. However, while there have been too many cases where disclosure failures have occurred, it is not a problem in all cases. Victims should not be afraid to come forward and we must not undermine the progress made in encouraging people to report offences.
In order to ensure the review’s recommendations are followed through, implementation and oversight will happen under the aegis of the Criminal Justice Board.
[HCWS1083]
Prosperity Fund: Annual Report
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to update the House on the progress of the cross-Government prosperity fund (PF) for the financial year 2017-18.
Created two years ago, the £1.2 billion prosperity fund runs over seven years from 2016 to 2023. It forms an integral part of the UK’s aid strategy, and official development assistance commitment of 0.7% of GNI.
The prosperity fund is grounded on the premise that economic growth, when sustainable and inclusive, can raise welfare and prosperity in middle income countries. It can also benefit trade and investment with partners such as the United Kingdom. Middle income countries present huge untapped economic potential, yet are home to around 60% of the world’s poor. They often seek our partnership and expertise, and opportunities to trade and grow out of poverty rather than traditional aid.
As the Prime Minister set out during her visit to Africa in August this year, we need to work with these countries; sharing our skills, our experience and our resources to tackle the challenges we face, and to deliver prosperity and security for everyone. The prosperity fund is a key driver of this. It removes barriers to trade, builds prosperous partnerships, and enables international and UK business to seize new opportunities. All whilst helping to meet the United Nations global goals for sustainable development and deepening the UK’s relationships with countries across the globe.
Following a review of the cross-Government funds, undertaken as part of the national security capability review, ministerial oversight of the prosperity fund and the conflict stability and security fund is now the responsibility of a sub-committee of the National Security Council. The sub-committee, which I chair, ensures that both funds deliver effectively on national security priorities and UK aid objectives. The cross-Government approach of the two funds allows them to deliver interventions that draw on expertise from across Government to tackle today’s stubborn global challenges.
The prosperity fund’s second annual report details progress made in 2017-18 towards development of the full portfolio: 26 multi-year programmes operating until 2023, across investment in infrastructure and human capital; innovation and technology; increasing trade; financial and economic reform; and ease of doing business. Priority countries and regions include: Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Nigeria, South Africa, China, India and southeast Asia.
In 2017-18 the total spend for the fund was £63 million, of which £7 million was for non-ODA activities. Several programmes are already delivering, like the DFID led Centre for Global Disaster Protection which is building developing countries’ financial resilience to natural disasters to reduce economic and social impacts. Others have been allocated initial funding, like the FCO led global future cities programme, which is providing support to Cape Town to better mitigate against climate-related shocks, such as their recent severe drought, which threatened jobs and growth in the region. The remainder are going through final stages of approval or procurement before they begin.
A copy of the 2017-18 prosperity fund annual report has been placed in the libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency in the delivery of official development assistance.
[HCWS1088]
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
The Agriculture and Fisheries Council will take place on 19 November in Brussels.
As the provisional agenda stands, the primary focus for fisheries will be a Council regulation fixing the fishing opportunities for certain deep-sea fish stocks for 2019 and 2020, for which the Commission is seeking political agreement.
The primary focus for agriculture will be a policy discussion on the common agricultural policy (CAP) post 2020. The Council will discuss two regulations during this item: the first on financing, management, and monitoring of the CAP, and the second on common market organisation (CMO) of agricultural products.
The Commission will then provide an update on the situation in EU agricultural markets. There will also be an exchange of views on Task Force Rural Africa (TFRA) and on current challenges in the field of plant protection.
There is currently one item scheduled under “any other business”: information from the Commission on the implementation of the European maritime and fisheries fund (EMFF).
[HCWS1085]
Foreign Affairs Council: 19 November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 19 November. It will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini, and will take place in Brussels.
The FAC will discuss current affairs, central Asia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine and Yemen.
Foreign Affairs Council
Central Asia
Ministers will discuss the EU’s role in central Asia ahead of the EU-Central Asia Foreign Ministers’ meeting on 23 November that HRVP Mogherini and Foreign Ministers from the five central Asian states will attend. The significance of the region has grown as Russia seeks to reassert its influence with countries to its south and as China continues to expand its westward trade routes. There are positive regional dynamics with better co-operation between states, as well as engagement with Afghanistan. The UK supports the EU expanding its activity across the central Asian region.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ministers will discuss the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) following the elections on 7 October. The UK will work with partners to promote a balanced and constructive European approach to BiH, focusing on the urgent needs for Government formation and socio-economic and other reforms for the benefit of all BiH citizens.
Ukraine
Ministers will discuss the recent spate of restrictive actions taken by Russia in the Azov Sea towards shipping using Ukrainian ports, and the so-called “elections” in the “Luhansk People’s Republic” and “Donetsk People’s Republic” held on 11 November in violation of the Minsk agreements. The UK supports the need to take firm action on Russian aggression, bringing Russia to account for its failure to fulfil Minsk agreement obligations, and to support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Our long-term vision for Ukraine is for a stable, resilient country that is a net contributor to European security, capable of defending its sovereignty, managing crises and resolving conflict peacefully and with the internal capacity to meet the needs of its citizens. Both presidential and parliamentary elections will be held in 2019, so it is vital Ukraine preserves the progress on reforms, particularly tackling corruption and promoting greater accountability and transparency.
Yemen
Ministers will discuss the situation on Yemen and how best to support the UN special envoy to make progress towards a sustainable political settlement that will underpin a long-term solution in Yemen. We will encourage all EU partners to support the UN special envoy’s proposals for de-escalation and confidence-building measures including the talks that he will convene in Stockholm at the end of November.
Council conclusions
The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on security and defence, Afghanistan, small arms and light weapons (SALW), the civilian compact, Pakistan, water diplomacy, Sudan and Ethiopia.
[HCWS1084]
National Cervical Screening Programme Incident
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
I am today informing the House of a serious incident relating to the ‘call and recall’ process administered by Primary Care Support England (PCSE), a service provided by Capita on behalf of NHS England as part of the national cervical cancer screening programme.
The NHS cervical cancer screening programme saves an estimated 5,000 lives a year by detecting abnormalities of the cervix early and referring women for effective treatment. It is offered to women aged 25 to 49 every three years and those aged 50 to 64 every five years.
On 17 October, NHS England and Public Health England were informed by Capita that a number of cervical screening invitation and reminder letters had not been sent to women inviting them to make a routine cervical screening appointment. Following further urgent investigation of this incident since then, I can now confirm that between January and June 2018, 43,220 women did not receive one or other of these letters and, in a very small minority of cases, neither the invitation nor reminder. In addition, Capita has also informed us that, between January and October 2018, a further 4,508 women were not sent letters informing them of the result of their cervical screening.
In light of this, NHS England declared this as a serious incident and set up a clinically-led multiagency incident panel including PCSE, Public Health England and NHS Digital on 23 October 2018 to assess any risk or harm to the women affected. The panel has put in place actions to assess and mitigate any risk as well as care and support where needed. Daily audits are now in place to ensure all women’s files are accounted for, and the panel is looking closely with Capita at how parts of the process could be automated to reduce errors.
Capita has confirmed that this incident was caused by files from their call and recall operations team not being correctly sent and uploaded to Capita’s print and despatch service between January and October 2018. Capita has accepted full responsibility for this incident and has apologised for it.
For the majority of the 4,508 women who did not receive their result letter, their result was normal. However, 182 women had a result that required a follow-up test (colposcopy) and 252 women needed an early repeat screening test. In most instances, where the screening result requires further tests or treatments, the laboratory will usually refer the woman directly to a colposcopy clinic independently of the woman receiving her result letter from Capita. For women needing early repeat testing, their GP routinely follows up these tests. However, to make sure all women needing a colposcopy or an early repeat test are being managed correctly, every woman’s screening record is being checked to ensure they have been referred appropriately. No harm has been identified to date.
Capita has made a public apology and has written to all the women who did not receive invitation or reminder letters and to those who did not get their normal result letter. Letters and apologies are being sent to all women who have not been referred for colposcopy or who have not had the required follow up screening test. In addition, the GPs of women affected have been informed so they can offer support to their patients.
The results of the screening and further tests on all women affected by this incident will be monitored over time to ensure any impact is followed up.
In addition to reviewing the checks in place around file transfer and checking the number of files processed, sent, printed and dispatched, Capita has produced a briefing for staff and proposed additional automation to the process to remove manual steps that may have contributed to this incident.
Our priority is patient safety and we will be assembling a clinical board that will provide oversight for the cervical screening call and recall service. This will ensure that every part of the process has an in-depth review.
NHS England is also undertaking an independent expert review of its screening programmes.
The Government continue to closely monitor the performance of all our suppliers and to implement improvement plans where necessary. Officials are working with Capita to ensure that the process recommendations and lessons learned from this issue are applied to similar services across Capita's public sector contracts.
Incidents of this type not only are unacceptable in terms of the impact they have on the women affected, but undermine public confidence in our screening programmes as a whole.
[HCWS1086]
Rural Crime and Public Services: Response to Opposition Day Debate
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
On 6 June 2018 this Parliament debated a motion about rural crime and public services. Many of the crimes mentioned during the debate, such as domestic violence and modern slavery, know no boundaries and can be found in urban and rural areas alike. However, the Government recognise that certain crimes, such as hare coursing and livestock offences, can be an additional pressure in rural areas.
We therefore welcome the rural affairs strategy published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council which, developed following a period of consultation with rural stakeholders, sets out operational and organisational policing priorities in respect of tackling crimes that particularly affect rural areas. It is very much intended that the strategy will support safer rural communities and a better rural focus in policing.
Members on all sides of the House emphasised the need to ensure that rural communities are not disadvantaged in the delivery or quality of public services to tackle crime. The Government are committed to providing all police forces in England and Wales with the resources they need to do their crucial work. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear at the Budget, we recognise the pressures on the police from the changing nature of crime. The Home Secretary is reviewing police spending power and further options for reform ahead of the provisional police funding settlement in December.
In 2017, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service spoke to every police force in England and Wales about the demands they faced, including many frontline officers. Alongside that, the Home Office undertook a robust assessment of demands and pressures on the police which found that, since 2015, there had been substantial changes in the demands on the police, with the make-up of recorded crime shifting towards more complex and resource intensive crimes, such as sexual offences and modern slavery. Increases in the reporting of high harm “hidden” crimes have affected both urban and rural forces across England and Wales.
This work led directly to a comprehensive funding settlement that is increasing total investment in the police by over £460 million in 2018-19. This includes £50 million for counter-terrorism, £130 million for national priorities and £280 million in force funding from increases in council tax precept income. The pressures on territorial policing were spread across England and Wales, so it was right to enable every police force, rural and urban alike, to protect their funding in real terms in 2018-19, including precept income.
Our work on demand is continuing. We are working closely with the policing sector in order to build the evidence base for the next spending review, to ensure the police continue to receive the resources they need. The existing police allocation formula includes population sparsity as a factor. The Government will consider the issue of the police funding formula in the context of the next spending review.
[HCWS1087]
House of Lords
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Domestic Abuse: General Practitioner Charges
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the general practitioner contract negotiations for 2019–20 to end charges for the provision of evidence of domestic abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the Department of Health and Social Care has put this important issue forward as part of the general practice contract negotiations for 2019-20. While the progress of those negotiations is not discussed publicly until an agreement has been reached, I can reassure the House that the Government are committed to dealing with this issue.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, survivors often need to provide evidence of abuse when applying for legal aid and for anonymous registration, and a letter from a GP is an acceptable form of evidence. GPs are able to charge survivors for this letter—in some cases over £150—and this is unacceptable. Can the Minister confirm, without question, that it is the official position of the Government to stop charges for these letters being made and that, either through the current negotiations or legislation, these fees will be banned?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I agree with the noble Lord. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of these letters being charged for. They have been identified by the Ministry of Justice and MHCLG as barriers to accessing support for victims of domestic violence. That cannot be right, and we are seeking to end that situation. GPs are independent contractors and therefore have that freedom unless it is specifically prohibited in their contracts, and that is what we are seeking.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, while supporting the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, perhaps I may point out that next week sees the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Will the Government celebrate the day and the end of austerity by funding more refuges and services for victims of domestic violence? This is necessary because during the recent years of austerity many refuges, which offered hundreds of safe places for women and their families, have been closed.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I can reassure the noble Baroness that we will celebrate that day. I think this Prime Minister has done more than any to clamp down on domestic violence and to support victims. That was shown in the £100 million that was set aside to support victims of domestic violence in a number of innovative ways. I can further reassure her that, as I understand it, the number of beds in refuges has increased over the past few years.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, it was good to hear the recent government announcement that they would ask the Law Commission to consider whether offences against older victims should be recognised as hate crimes, and of course the charges in this respect are important. The Times has recently shown that crimes against the over-65s increased between 2013 and 2017 by 31%; and violent and sexual crimes against them increased by a similar amount. I agree with Action on Elder Abuse that the figures are symptomatic of a failure to recognise the signs of this kind of abuse. What action are the Government taking as the Law Commission considers hate crime as a potential offence? Can the Minister give an idea of the timescale in which he expects it to come to a conclusion on this matter?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I join the noble Baroness in condemning this type of crime, and it is disturbing that violence against older victims has risen. That is precisely the reason the Government have asked the Law Commission to look at the issue and bring forward suggestions on how to give the authorities greater powers to clamp down on those who perpetrate such crimes.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister concerned that the treatment of these abuse issues is under serious threat, given that many surgeries in the north of England no longer have a single permanent doctor?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I do not think that it is an issue of staffing per se, because it is not only doctors but other healthcare professionals who are able to provide letters of this kind. The evidence that has been gathered through consultation and indeed through the progress of the secure tenancies Bill is that the charges for these letters act as a barrier. That is the issue we are trying to address.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that evidence of domestic abuse is important not only in respect of the adult who is the victim but also in respect of the children? It is the children who are often the most innocent victims in these situations. Given that, GPs have an important role to play in producing evidence of the well-being of children in these households.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Lord speaks with great wisdom on this subject. That is precisely why the domestic abuse Bill is looking to provide stronger sentences where a child has been involved or has witnessed this kind of abuse, and why some of the money I mentioned earlier, around £8 million this year, has been put aside to support children in these situations.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the time of the Labour Government, our noble and learned friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, when she was a Home Office Minister, took legislation through the House that provided for independent domestic violence advisers in courts? Those positions were abolished by the coalition Government. Will he consider reinstating them?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness will appreciate that this is not a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is something that I will be happy to look into. What I do know is that the draft domestic abuse Bill is looking to establish a domestic abuse commissioner. It may be that it is through that route that support of that kind may be made available.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, do we have any special reception facilities for men or women who have been abused? When I served on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, we had an opportunity to consider the excellent procedures in place in Brazil, a country which has taken this matter very seriously indeed. Over the years, this issue has been raised quite often, but do the police here pay any special attention to it, and do they protect those men or women who say that they have been attacked?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My noble friend is right to say that domestic abuse can affect anyone, although of course it happens predominantly to women. The police, local authorities and the third sector are there to provide support for both men and women when they are abused.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I understand that it is becoming more common for some general practitioners to see older people with a similar illness in groups. Would this not be quite prejudicial to the idea of having a confidential interview with one’s GP if abuse has been threatened?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
This would be for the discretion of the GP. I would be amazed if any GP would want to see someone who has come to them with a confidential matter, such as saying that they have been the victim of domestic abuse, in a group situation. That seems to be quite wrong. There is a role for group GP appointments for totally different issues, and indeed some of the emerging evidence shows that, for certain illnesses, they can be quite successful.
Productivity: Work-related Stress
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of work-related stress on productivity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, an estimated 15.4 million working days were lost last year due to work-related stress, depression or anxiety. That is 57% of the total days lost due to work-related ill health. The 2017 Stevenson/Farmer review of workplace mental health made 40 recommendations, all of which were welcomed by the Government.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but the Government’s latest skills and employment survey told us that we are working harder than ever and are under increased strain. In spite of this, productivity has stagnated. Recent research by McKinsey seems to show that less prescriptive management empowers staff to be more productive and reduces stress. What can be done to encourage this good practice? It would certainly help with the productivity puzzle. It also costs little and could relieve some of the mental health problems we hear about every day.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to productivity problems, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State raised in the Industrial Strategy last year. He is also right to talk about work-related stress, which was recognised as a problem by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in January 2017. That is why she commissioned the review from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and Paul Farmer, which produced its report in October last year. The Government then responded, accepting all the recommendations. The Government will do whatever they can both as an employer, to help to reduce work-related stress, and through setting an example to others and encouraging employers in other fields. We will also take note of the noble Lord’s suggestions.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, large organisations have volunteer first-aiders. Would the Government consider having volunteer mental health first-aiders so that somebody with a mental health condition who wants signposting could go to them in the same way that somebody with a workplace injury could see someone?
Lord Henley
My Lords, that is a very interesting suggestion. I cannot remember the precise details of all the recommendations in the Stevenson/Farmer report as to whether that was one of them, but it certainly recommended that large employers—organisations with more than 500 people—should take certain actions. The Government recommended applying that to employers with more than 250 people, an improvement on that figure. I will certainly take the noble Baroness’s suggestion on board and ensure that it is looked at.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to trivialise the issue but I want to bask in the reflected glory of the name Stevenson. Unfortunately, it was nothing to do with me. I guess there must be quite a lot of stress in the party opposite in the current circumstances so I send them my best wishes at this difficult time.
Does the Minister accept that work-related stress is one of the components of job quality? On page 118 of the 254-page Industrial Strategy, the Government set out a programme of work stemming from Matthew Taylor’s review, which assessed job quality and success—including the well-being of workers and employees, which is said to be fundamental. Can he say what progress has been made on that work stream?
Lord Henley
My Lords, if the noble Lord can be patient, he will get a further response to the Taylor review in due course. I assure him that there is no stress in the Conservative Party or the Government at the moment.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, have the Government considered the impact on stress and mental health of zero-hours contracts? Does the Minister agree that although they may suit students and semi-retired people, they are not good for the rest of the population?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord highlighted the fact that zero-hours contracts have a part to play in our economy. As he suggested, they are of considerable benefit to a great many people, such as students and retired people. They also benefit others. Again, if the noble Lord can be patient, he will hear more from the Government in due course.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I fear that this is beginning to sound a like a shopping list, but another way of alleviating stress in the workplace is for employees to have the tools and the training to be able to meet the requirements of their job. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s plans for industrial and workplace training are in a mess? The apprenticeship levy is falling down and workplace training is at a level lower than it has ever been. What will the Government do to get a grip on training?
Lord Henley
I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity in trying to extend the Question to a great many other subjects. Stress has many causes; we understand that there is a problem with it; that is why we commissioned the review by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—not the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, sitting opposite me—and Paul Farmer. It is also why the Government accepted what they suggested.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, if Brexit comes in and Airbus and other firms move out of north Wales, with some 7,000 jobs and 400 apprenticeships going with them, will that increase or decrease the stress of those involved in those industries?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I suspect that what will increase stress in those industries is the noble Lord and others putting about scare stories of that sort.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, would it relieve the anxiety of noble Lords if the Minister reminded them that Aston Martin had decided to open a large works in Wales?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, it is very good that we have such an experienced Minister replying to this Question. Can I urge him to consider introducing counselling sessions for those experiencing work-related depression and anxiety at the moment—namely, members of the Cabinet?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, can we not have an award for resilience under stress presented to the Prime Minister?
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, without meaning to hog the Question from the Liberal Democrat Benches, can I follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel: that we appear to be working considerably harder without improving productivity? What does the Minister think about the suggestion made by a commentator in the Sunday Times that every company needs to invest in making the most of the talent they have rather than endlessly employing cheap labour?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we always welcome interventions from the Liberal Democrat Benches and never think there are too many.
Lord Henley
Sometimes.
I take note of the noble Lord’s suggestion. As we made clear, we accept that there is a problem with productivity. We want to improve it and get it up to levels that we see in other countries.
Policing: Priorities
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether police forces have established effective priorities for fighting crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, police and crime commissioners are directly elected to set the policing priorities for their local areas and hold their chief constable to account. They must also have regard to national policing priorities and the strategic policing requirement. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services periodically reports on police effectiveness. In its most recent effectiveness inspection report, the majority of forces were graded good.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
While I am grateful to the Minister, I wonder what she made of the comments of the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Sara Thornton, in calling on police forces to refocus their priorities on what she described as “core policing”. Does the Minister accept that that highlights the appalling state that we have reached? Since 2010, there has been a 15% real-term, full-time equivalent reduction in the number of her police officers. Many crimes now go unrecorded and undealt with. The figures since 2015 show that there has been a 26% reduction in the number of charges or summons brought for recorded crime, resulting in 153,000 fewer criminals being brought to justice. What is the Government’s response to the appalling state that we have reached?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think that I have stood at this Dispatch Box before and said that it is up to local police forces to set priorities for their local areas, because they will differ from area to area. It is important to note—I have said this before as well—that both the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister recognise the increasing calls on police time and the different demands facing them, particularly in light of events in the past year. There is an additional point about how the police operate. It will not be any surprise to the noble Lord that some police forces are far more effective than others, and it is important to think of ways in which they could collaborate, make better use of technology and be more efficient as time goes on.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in the current scenario in which there is significant rationing of policing services because of central government cuts to police budgets, it is no longer acceptable for the Government, and the Home Office in particular, to wash their hands of the consequences. When will the Home Office provide the leadership needed and tell the police service what it should stop doing, because it cannot do everything that the public want with the resources it has been given?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Home Office has no intention of telling the police what they should stop doing because, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there will be different priorities in different areas. It is up to local police forces to decide what those are. As for the other acknowledgement by the Home Office, which is that the police are facing new demands and have faced increasing calls upon their time over the last year or so, both the Policing Minister and the Home Secretary fully recognise this and are working with the Treasury to get a better settlement.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, the Minister must recognise that there is a connection between police numbers and police effectiveness. In view of the considerable reductions of the recent past, is there any prospect of the numbers being increased in the near future?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I both agree and disagree with my noble friend: numbers in and of themselves do not lead directly to effectiveness. However, where those numbers are stretched to the point that it impacts on effectiveness, both the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister have absolutely recognised this. There is not necessarily a direct correlation between the two—of course, the most effective police force, Durham, is also the most efficient.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the reduction in the size of safer neighbourhood teams in both Wales and England on the capacity of the police to gather intelligence that helps them deliver on their priorities?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, safer neighbourhood teams certainly provide reassurance to local people, and if local forces feel there should be more numbers in the safer neighbourhood teams, then that is what they should invest in. I certainly recognise that safer neighbourhood teams provide reassurance at a local level.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, I think there are two axes that the Government might follow for the future. One is that the police genuinely need at times to be more effective—just having fewer resources is not a good reason to say that they always need more resources; they have to be more effective at times with the resources they have. I have always felt that, both in the job as well as outside now. However, there is clearly a resourcing issue, and I repeat a constructive suggestion that I ask the Minister to consider. With the transformation fund for the police rising to £350 million over the next two years, which by my estimation would provide 7,000 police officers, it is a foolish endeavour when all it is for is to cover for the fact that there will not be regional police forces. It is not transforming anything; it is taking money from the police at the very time when I would argue that those 7,000 would help to fill the 20,000 gap that has developed over the last seven years.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I start by thanking the noble Lord for what I found to be an extremely helpful discussion yesterday, particularly around knife crime, and for all the incredible work he did as commissioner. He is absolutely right, and I have alluded to it in my answers, that there needs to be more effectiveness within police forces. I take his point about fewer police forces larger in number, but I think that the transformation fund is doing some very good work and is actually incentivising police forces to be more efficient.
Police: Serious and Violent Crime
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, perhaps topically, declare my interest as the police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the serious violence strategy sets out our response to tackling serious violence and it includes an ambitious programme of 61 commitments to take action on this issue. We have already delivered on our commitment to establish a new national county lines co-ordination centre and to improve police capabilities to tackle this issue, and we have provided £1.4 million to support a new national police capability to tackle gang-related activity on social media.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. The early intervention youth fund is obviously a good idea and I welcome the support that the Government have given to Metropolitan Police forces—by goodness, they need the funding. I know that the Minister has been a supporter of Leicester’s projects to fight serious and violent crime in the past, but how can the Home Office justify giving no funding at all to Leicester, a city which has seen an increase of 12.5% since 2015—more than double the average around the country—alongside massive child poverty, child crime and youth crime? Further, how can the Home Office justify giving nothing to Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire or Leicestershire, by far the three largest police force areas in the East Midlands, each of which has a city conurbation and whose population amounts to over 3 million people? Why has the East Midlands been treated so much worse than any other part of England and Wales?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I first pay tribute to the noble Lord as Parliament’s only PCC. He is absolutely right that I support the work that Leicester does. I have been to see the work that he has done as PCC, particularly some of the multiagency work across services to improve the lives of people in Leicestershire. There were 111 bids for the early intervention youth fund, so it was a very competitive process indeed. As he has let me know that Leicester was unsuccessful, I would like to sit down and talk to him, perhaps about the youth endowment fund that the Home Secretary has announced and what might be done there. This is a metropolitan problem, as well as everywhere else.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, as well as better and more effective policing, we need a long-term, consistent grass-roots focus on this problem, working with not just the statutory authorities but the voluntary sector. For example, the pan-London churches serious violence summit was hosted by Southwark Cathedral earlier this week. Will the Minister support and resource such initiatives where the grass roots are trying to address the roots of these problems?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally agree that some grass-roots interventions are the most critical and beneficial to local areas. Not only do we appreciate the work that people such as the right reverend Prelate do, but we are keen to carry on supporting it. He is absolutely right that to achieve any long-term change in local areas we have to work with local people, local groups and local charities.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
This is the second Question on policing today and it is the Home Office that has a responsibility for assessing how much funding police forces need. In the light of the 11% to 25% range—in real percentage terms—in funding reductions experienced by police forces between 2010-11 and 2018-19, rising violent crime, fewer arrests, high numbers of crimes not being investigated, less neighbourhood policing, fewer police officers and declining public satisfaction, is it still the Government’s assessment that police forces have sufficient funding in the current financial year to meet the legitimate demand for police services? Is the answer yes or no?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Government’s assessment at this point in time—I refer again to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my honourable friend the Policing Minister—is that the police have had huge increases in demand. The pattern of crime is changing, as the noble Lord pointed out. Knife crime is a particular issue in London and county lines are spreading the problem across forces. I know that the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister recognise this and are looking to work on the funding picture.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, public health approaches such as those mentioned earlier can take a decade to produce significant results and meanwhile, young people are dying. Effective, targeted stop and search based on community intelligence requires a significant investment in community policing to build trust and confidence in the police and restore the flow of information about who the knife carriers are, so that the knives can be taken off the streets. When will the Government make such an investment? This is a clear example of where more resources could save lives.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I acknowledge that a public health approach is not a quick fix, but in Scotland, where there has been a public health approach for some time, it has been incredibly effective. I know that officials have been talking with the Scottish violence reduction unit and sharing its experience and insight into just how effective a public health approach can be.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that there are several noble Lords competing for a place. It is difficult to make a judgment, but I think we should hear from the Green Party.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, in conversation with two ex-Met officers recently, they told me that good policing can reduce drug-related crime, which is obviously serious for young people, but it can never affect the scale of the problem simply because drug criminals keep being replaced. So is it time for the Government to regulate illegal drugs and take the business out of the hands of criminals?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government have no plans to legalise drugs. The noble Baroness is right that good policing can reduce drug crime and all the effects that we are seeing from drug-related crime now. She is right, but we are not intending to legalise drugs.
Business of the House
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debates on the motions in the names of Earl Attlee and Baroness Neville-Rolfe set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, in a few moments I will repeat the Prime Minister’s Statement on the draft withdrawal agreement. Given the significance of its content, I recognise that the House will want more time to consider it than the usual 40 minutes, which is why my noble friend the Chief Whip has rearranged business on Tuesday next week to allow a debate of up to four hours. That will give noble Lords more time to consider the documents that have been made available. A speakers’ list has been opened. I beg to move.
Brexit: Negotiations
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, I would like to update the House on our negotiations to leave the European Union. First, I want to pay tribute to my right honourable friends the Members for Esher and Walton and for Tatton. Delivering Brexit involves difficult choices for all of us. We do not agree on all of those choices but I respect their views and thank them sincerely for all that they have done.
Yesterday we agreed the provisional terms of our exit from the European Union, set out in the draft withdrawal agreement. We also agreed the broad terms of our future relationship in an outline political declaration. President Juncker has now written to the President of the European Council to recommend that,
‘decisive progress has been made in the negotiations’,
and a special European Council will be called for Sunday 25 November. This puts us close to a Brexit deal.
What we agreed yesterday was not the final deal. It is a draft treaty that means we will leave the EU in a smooth and orderly way on 29 March 2019 and which sets the framework for a future relationship that delivers in our national interest.
It takes back control of our borders, laws and money. It protects jobs, security and the integrity of the United Kingdom, and it delivers in ways that many said could simply not be done. We were told that we had a binary choice between the model of Norway and the model of Canada—that we could not have a bespoke deal. But the outline political declaration sets out an arrangement that is better for our country than both of these, a more ambitious free trade agreement than the EU has with any other country. We were told that we would be treated like any other third country on security co-operation, but the outline political declaration sets out a breadth and depth of co-operation beyond anything that the EU has agreed with any other country.
Let me take the House through the details. First, on the withdrawal agreement, the full legal text has now been agreed in principle. It sets out the terms on which the UK will leave the EU in 134 days’ time, on 29 March 2019. We have secured the rights of the more than 3 million EU citizens living in the UK, and around 1 million UK nationals living in the EU. We have agreed a time-limited implementation period that ensures that businesses have to plan for only one set of changes. We have agreed protocols to ensure that Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas are covered by the withdrawal agreement. And we have agreed a fair financial settlement, far lower than the figures that many mentioned at the start of this process.
Since the start of this process, I have been committed to ensuring that our exit from the EU deals with the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I believe this issue can best be solved through our future relationship with the EU, but the withdrawal agreement sets out an insurance policy should that new relationship not be ready in time at the end of the implementation period. I do not pretend that this has been a comfortable process, or that either we or the EU are entirely happy with all the arrangements that have been included within it. Of course that is the case; this is an arrangement that we have both said we never want to have to use. While some people might pretend otherwise, there is no deal that delivers the Brexit that the British people voted for that does not involve this insurance policy—not Canada-plus-plus-plus, not “Norway for now”, not our own White Paper— and the EU will not negotiate any future partnership without it.
As the House knows, the original proposal from the EU was not acceptable as it would have meant creating a customs border down the Irish Sea and breaking up the integrity of our United Kingdom, so last month I set out for the House the four steps that we needed to take. This is what we have now done and it has seen the EU make a number of concessions towards our position. First, the EU proposal for a Northern Ireland-only customs solution has been dropped and replaced by a new UK-wide temporary customs arrangement that protects the integrity of our precious union.
Secondly, we have created an option for a single time-limited extension of the implementation period as an alternative to bringing in the backstop. As I have said many times, I do not want to extend the implementation period and I do not believe we will need to do so. This is about an insurance policy. However, if it happens that at the end of 2020 our future relationship is not quite ready, the UK will be able to make a choice between the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement and a short extension of the implementation period.
Thirdly, the withdrawal agreement commits both parties to use best endeavours to ensure that this insurance policy is never used. In the unlikely event that it is needed, if we choose the backstop then the withdrawal agreement is explicit that it is temporary and that the Article 50 legal base cannot provide for a permanent relationship. There is also a mechanism by which the backstop can be terminated. Finally, we have ensured full continued access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market.
The Brexit talks are about acting in the national interest, and that means making what I believe to be the right choices, not the easy ones. I know there are some who have said I should simply rip up the UK’s commitment to a backstop, but that would have been an entirely irresponsible course of action. It would have meant reneging on a promise made to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign and afterwards that under no circumstances would Brexit lead to a return to the borders of the past, and it would have made it impossible to deliver a withdrawal agreement. As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I have a responsibility to people in every part of our country and I intend to honour that promise.
By resolving this issue, we are now able to move on to finalising the details of an ambitious future partnership. The outline political declaration we have agreed sets out the basis for these negotiations, and we will negotiate intensively ahead of the European Council to turn this into a full future framework. The declaration will end free movement once and for all. Instead, we will have our own new skills-based immigration system based not on the country that people come from but on what they can contribute to the UK. The declaration agrees the creation of a free trade area for goods with zero tariffs, no fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all goods sectors. No other major advanced economy has such an arrangement with the EU. At the same time, we will be free to strike new trade deals with other partners around the world.
We have also reached common ground on a close relationship on services and investment, including financial services, which goes well beyond WTO commitments. The declaration ensures that we will be leaving the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, so we will decide how best to sustain and support our farms and environment and the UK will become an independent coastal state once again.
We have also reached agreement on key elements of our future security partnership to keep our people safe. This includes swift and effective extradition arrangements, as well as arrangements for effective data exchange on passenger name record data, DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data, and we have agreed a close and flexible partnership on foreign security and defence policy.
When I first became Prime Minister in 2016, there was no ready-made blueprint for Brexit. Many people said that it simply could not be done. I have never accepted that. I have been committed day and night to delivering on the result of the referendum and ensuring that the UK leaves the EU absolutely and on time. But I also said at the very start that withdrawing from EU membership after 40 years and establishing a wholly new relationship that will endure for decades to come would be complex and require hard work. I know that it has been a frustrating process. It has forced us to confront some very difficult issues. But a good Brexit, a Brexit which is in the national interest, is possible. We have persevered and made a decisive breakthrough. Once a final deal is agreed, I will bring it to Parliament and ask MPs to consider the national interest and give it their backing. Voting against a deal would take us all back to square one. It would mean more uncertainty, more division and a failure to deliver on the decision of the British people that we should leave the EU. If we get behind a deal, we can bring our country back together and seize the opportunities that lie ahead.
The British people want us to get this done and to get on with addressing the other issues that they care about: creating more good jobs in every part of the UK and doing more to help families with the cost of living, helping our NHS to provide first-class care and our schools to give every child a great start in life, and focusing every ounce of our energy on building a brighter future for our country.
The choice is clear. We can choose to leave with no deal, we can risk no Brexit at all or we can choose to unite and support the best deal that can be negotiated: this deal, a deal that ends free movement, takes back control of our borders, laws and money, delivers a free trade area for goods with zero tariffs, leaves the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, delivers an independent foreign and defence policy while retaining continued security co-operation to keep our people safe, maintains shared commitment to high standards, protects jobs, honours the integrity of our United Kingdom and delivers the Brexit that the British people voted for.
I choose to deliver for the British people. I choose to do what is in the national interest, and I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement today, although I have to say that I did not detect any great enthusiasm there. I am grateful for her statement at the beginning about timing. Last night, the usual channels agreed the normal arrangements for a Statement, with Back-Bench contributions for 20 minutes today and a more substantive debate of three or four hours on Tuesday, when noble Lords will have had the opportunity to read and consider the detail of the deal and the documents. However, with such significant developments this morning—four resignations so far from the Government, including the Brexit Secretary—it is clear that there is a crisis at the very heart of government. I am disappointed that the Government would not accede to our request for extra Back-Bench time today—I think that was wrong. However, we welcome a longer four-hour debate next week, when we can consider the deal in greater detail. Given the importance of the issue, and because that debate is instead of time today, will the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that she will lead the response next Tuesday?
As the Government descend further into chaos, one thing has remained consistent: the Prime Minister’s approach of living for the moment—getting through today, and worrying about tomorrow later. That has not served her or the country well. But we should not forget that this situation is not entirely of this Prime Minister’s making. The entire Brexit process has been about the internal politics of the Conservative Party. It cost David Cameron and George Osborne their jobs—although the latter has done fairly well for himself since—and it could be about to cost the Prime Minister hers as well.
Last night, outside Downing Street, the Prime Minister claimed that the withdrawal agreement and the outline political declaration had been agreed by “a collective decision of the Cabinet”, and yet this morning, so far, two Cabinet Members have resigned—I do not know whether there is an update on the figure yet. She has failed to unite her Cabinet again. She has failed to unite her party, with MPs reportedly rushing to submit letters to the chairman of the 1922 Committee. Watching the Statement in the other place, we have seen that she is failing to unite Parliament, where there is seemingly no majority for any course of action, other than opposing no deal.
So let us be clear about what is most important: the Prime Minister is failing the people of our country. Families, communities, businesses and workers will not be able to understand why the Conservative Party is behaving in this way, putting the economic well-being of the country behind petty infighting and personal ambition. As Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said this morning, we need Parliament and the country to come together and find a real alternative to this agreement—a deal that the Prime Minister’s former adviser has labelled a “capitulation”.
Those who have welcomed the deal have either said it is “the best we can get”—faint praise indeed—or, as the CBI made clear, support the very measures that the Brexiteers have opposed: a long-term transition and frictionless trade. The draft agreement and political declaration published last night are exactly what we expected: vague promises of a future trade deal, but no clear road map as to how, or when, this will be achieved.
So, what has our sovereign Parliament been offered? The documents contain no commitment to a permanent customs union, despite the support of business and the trade unions; no detail on our future relationship with the single market, despite the EU being our biggest single trade partner; and no clarity regarding the terms on which the UK will continue to participate in EU agencies and internal security systems.
Your Lordships’ House worked hard to secure a meaningful vote for the other place, but the Government are telling parliamentarians that they must decide between this bad deal or no deal at all. It is a Hobson’s choice—that is, no choice. As many predicted, last night’s Cabinet marathon meeting has become a disappointing sequel to July’s Chequers summit. An agreement that has been toiled over for many months has yet again unravelled overnight.
On social media, I am known as @Lady Basildon. It is not just about my former constituency and my home, it is after a character in an Oscar Wilde play. As I watched the news of resignations unfold, a Wildean phrase came to mind: to lose one Brexit Secretary may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness. We now understand why the Prime Minister was not prepared to allow a vote in Cabinet. She could not because she did not have the support of her colleagues. She must have known how fragile the position was when she made her statement last night.
I have little time for David Davis and Boris Johnson. They failed in Cabinet to convince their colleagues of their so-called vision for Brexit or to come up with any viable alternative. They now stand back and attack the Prime Minister from the sidelines. Dominic Raab has criticised the deal but, again, offers no credible alternative. While many in the Cabinet, including, apparently, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, voiced their concerns about the draft agreement last night, no alternative was offered at the meeting. It remains unclear exactly what Brexiteers want, other than to lead this great country off a cliff edge in a few short months’ time.
The situation will undoubtedly evolve in the coming hours and days. Noble Lords will use the expertise of this House to track developments. We will have our debate on Tuesday, but today, it would be helpful if your Lordships’ House were left in no doubt about the noble Baroness’s position. Does the Leader of the House give the Prime Minister and the draft withdrawal agreement her full support?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I commiserate with the noble Baroness who had to repeat this Statement, because we know that she does not agree with it. It appears that she was one of 10 Cabinet Ministers who expressed severe reservations about the agreement. Will she explain her reservations in her reply? I think that the House would like to know.
There is a lot of real and mock surprise and indignation about the contents of the withdrawal agreement. Yet how could anybody reasonably expect it to be materially different from what has emerged? Once you accept a frictionless border in Northern Ireland, provisions such as those now in the agreement become inevitable. That was recognised by the Government in the agreement they reached with the EU last December and, incidentally, which they have spent the last 10 months denying. They have now reaffirmed that December commitment.
If the outcome on the transitional period and the backstop are predictable, I am genuinely shocked at the outline of the political declaration. In some ways, this is a much more important document because it covers our long-term relationship with the EU, not just the position during the transitional phase. I had expected the document to be layered with fudge, but I could not imagine that it would be so vague and unspecific—a mere seven pages.
It is vastly less detailed than the Chequers agreement, which listed some 68 programmes or bodies by name of which the UK wished to remain a member post Brexit. This document mentions hardly any. I believe that we are to get a somewhat extended version next week but, based on the seven pages we have before us today, it is unlikely to answer any of the difficult issues which remain. Fisheries and the European arrest warrant are but two of the myriad tricky issues that are clearly nowhere near being resolved. I cannot believe that the country would accept this pig-in-a-poke Brexit.
However, it is clear that we are not going to get to the point where these things matter, because the agreement document bears all the hallmarks of Monty Python’s dead parrot. It is bereft of life. In her statement last night, and again this morning, the Prime Minister admitted for the first time that there are three possible outcomes to the Brexit process. We can accept her deal, we can crash out without a deal, or we can remain. The noble Baroness has said many times that remain was not an option. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has probably said it hundreds of times.
Lord Newby
Or thousands, I stand corrected. That was never true. At least the Prime Minister now accepts reality. I am not by nature an avid reader of the Daily Express, but I caught its front page today and I agree with its headline: “It’s a deal—or no Brexit”. I agree. And given that it is now abundantly clear that the current deal has zero chance of passing through the Commons, and we know of course that the Commons would never vote for a ruinous no-deal outcome, remain is now the only viable option. This will of course require a referendum to get the endorsement of the people.
The Government are spending hundreds of millions of pounds preparing for a no-deal outcome, which they know will not happen. Will they now spend the extremely modest amount needed to prepare for a referendum, to be held next spring, which will put the Government’s deal to the people with an option to reject it and remain in the EU? Given that we have been told from the Dispatch Box umpteen times that a prudent Government prepare for all possible contingencies, and that they now accept that this is a possibility, would a failure to do so now not be a dereliction of duty on the Government’s part?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
First, I am very happy to tell the House that I fully support the Prime Minister and I back this deal. I would not be standing here if I did not—and I am very grateful that everyone seems so happy to see me.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the outline political declaration. Negotiations will now continue to finalise the full political declaration, focusing on adding detail, defining further what balance of rights and obligations should apply in the context of trading goods and identifying which additional operational capabilities should be prioritised for consideration in the context of internal security. We are determined to conclude a full political declaration by the end of November, bringing the Article 50 negotiations to a close. Once agreed, we will bring that deal to Parliament. We have agreed, as the outline document shows, the scope of a future relationship, signalling the ambition on both sides. We have agreed to the creation of a free trade area for goods, combining deep regulatory and customs co-operation with zero tariffs and no fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all goods sectors—the first such agreement between an advanced economy and the EU. Common ground has been reached on our intention to have a close relationship on services and investment, including financial services; on the desire for wide-ranging sectoral co-operation, including on transport and energy; and on fisheries, recognising that the UK will be an independent coastal state.
The noble Lord asked about the European arrest warrant. He is correct that it is still under negotiation, but the EU and UK have agreed to swift and effective arrangements enabling the UK and member states to extradite suspected and convicted persons efficiently and expeditiously. Both the UK and EU recognise the continued importance of close and effective operational co-operation and recognise the risks of reverting to the Council of Europe conventions. I am afraid to say to the noble Lord that we will not be holding a second referendum.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend assist me? The deal that has been agreed involves spending £39 billion in return for having less say over employment policies, agricultural policies, environment and taxation. It has resulted in headlines across Europe—the most dramatic perhaps being in Ireland:
“Victory in Dublin, chaos in London”—
and the humiliation of our country. How can it be presented as being in the national interest to have brought about such a circumstance?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend’s assessment. We have agreed the principles of the UK’s smooth and orderly exit from the EU, as set out in the withdrawal agreement, and agreed the broad terms of our future relationship. We are delivering on the result of the referendum; we will be leaving the EU; and, going forward, we will be developing a strong partnership with the EU that will last for decades to come.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, in the choice between democratic and material values in 2016, the people of this country voted by a clear majority to reclaim democratically accountable self-government. Is it not now incumbent on those who speak and vote on their behalf in Parliament to do likewise and to reject this deal, which fails to allow us the governmental autonomy that the people of our country ought to have?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Again, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord. This deal is bringing back autonomy to this country, and it should be supported.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, we have not heard from the Cross Benches; I think we ought to hear from them.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Perhaps the Minister can tell me what is meant by the letter from Mr Raab, which said that he could not support the declaration because,
“the regulatory regime proposed for Northern Ireland presents a very real threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom”,
whereas the Statement from the Prime Minister says that,
“the EU proposal for a Northern Ireland-only customs solution has been dropped and replaced by a new UK-wide temporary customs arrangement”.
Which is the situation?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The EU proposal for a Northern Ireland-only customs solution has indeed been dropped and replaced by a UK-wide temporary customs arrangement which protects the integrity of the UK. However, there are regulatory elements necessary to avoid a hard border that will apply to Northern Ireland only, including product standards on industrial goods and agricultural products, as well as regulations strictly necessary to maintain the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. There are already some regulatory differences between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The House will know that there is a limited amount of time. We ought to hear from the Liberal Democrat Back Benches.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, the Statement says that,
“the broad terms of our future relationship”,
have been agreed in the outline political declaration. How can the Minister justify that assertion when that very short outline is nothing more than a shopping list? There are hardly any verbs in it. For instance, on fisheries, which my noble friend mentioned, it talks about the aim of the,
“establishment of a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares”.
That tells us nothing about the detail, which is a crucial issue. Can the Minister explain how on earth we are going to get from this to something more substantive in the next week or so? What is the process? At the moment there is no flesh on the bones.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said in response to questions from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, work will now begin on a fuller political declaration that will be published after the November summit.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, quite frankly we could do with more time. If the 2016 vote was about anything, it was about taking back control—that was the slogan and that was what the vote was about. This deal leaves us with less control, less power and less influence in Europe and the wider world for an indefinite and prolonged period. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, as regards our domestic regulations and laws it leaves us with no voice, no vote and no veto. How can the Government possibly contemplate trying to take this through Parliament when it is the absolute opposite of what the people voted for, rather than taking it back to the people and letting them decide?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, having agreed the withdrawal agreement, we will now be able to talk about moving on to our future relationship, which will bring back exactly the kinds of powers and develop exactly the kind of relationship that the noble Lord is talking about. The withdrawal treaty is about leaving the EU; we can now look forward, having agreed that, to an excellent future relationship together.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, paragraph 4 of Article 129 of the withdrawal agreement makes the future arrangements for this country crystal clear. It says that,
“during the transition period, the United Kingdom may negotiate, sign and ratify international agreements entered into in its own capacity”.
That makes it very clear where the future lies, and perhaps contradicts what was said earlier. As the Labour Opposition Front Bench here in the Lords is so vastly superior to the Labour Opposition Front Bench in the other place, does my noble friend think that it might, on the day, support the withdrawal agreement or at least abstain?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My noble friend is absolutely right that, under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, the UK will be free to negotiate, sign and ratify FTAs during the implementation period and to bring them into force from January 2021. I have no doubt that we will have many useful discussions in this House about the future relationship with the EU, and I look forward to them.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Governments of Wales and Scotland have, as a post-Brexit objective, an ongoing involvement in the EU single market? In view of the fact that Northern Ireland has been accorded such a facility, will she confirm that it is equally negotiable for Wales and Scotland, or is Northern Ireland being treated differently?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
No. As we said, the EU proposal for a Northern Ireland-only customs solution has been dropped and replaced by a UK-wide temporary customs arrangement that protects the integrity of the union.
Lord Lea of Crondall
The Minister lays great stress on what might be summarised as “There is no alternative”—a phrase that we have heard somewhere before. This slogan is patently inaccurate. I know that the Minister would like it to be the case, but is she not obliged to consider alternatives as they are presented?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Prime Minister, supported by the Cabinet, has brought forward this deal, which has been negotiated with the EU, and it is the deal on the table. There will be a Council meeting later this month for both parties to agree it, and it will then be put to Parliament, which will, I hope, support it.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I applaud the efforts of the Prime Minister in getting us this far, but I fear that my misgivings about what would happen in this process have been proven all too true—namely, the political declaration is meaningless waffle and, worse still, it is laced with the cyanide of the backstop. I understand what my noble friend says about us wishing to get more clarity in this political declaration, so maybe she can now tell the House what it means when it says that the future relationship will,
“build on the single customs territory”?
What does that mean? Does it mean that we will remain in some form of customs union with the European Union?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
No. It means that we want a frictionless border, and we will continue to work on that. However, once we leave the EU, we will be able to negotiate free trade agreements across the world and become a truly global Britain.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, did the Minister note the poll that took place on Tuesday—the biggest poll carried out since the referendum, consulting some 25,000 people—showing strong and growing support for letting the people have the final say, including increasing support in marginal Conservative seats and support among Labour members by a margin of no less than 59% to 41%? In the light of this, if the Government are concerned to listen to the voice of the people, is it not right that in the immediate future the alternative to no deal, which is where we are heading, is to let the people have the final say?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid to say to the noble Lord that we have heard from the people. The people voted to leave the European Union. We are coming forward to a deal which will deliver that, and we will work on a bright relationship with the EU going forward.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement speaks of bringing the country back together. Does the Minister believe that this is a credible and achievable aim? If so, how will it be brought about?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Yes, I do believe it is credible and achievable. It is something the Prime Minister has been focused on. She is delivering Brexit. We have a deal. We will bring that deal to Parliament. We hope Parliament will support it, and we will bring the country back together in a strong relationship with the EU going forward.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, during the debate, much was said about our precious union. Does the Minister agree that, in fact, the precious union will be destroyed by this deal if it goes through—although that seems unlikely. Surely Northern Ireland has now been pushed on to a ledge and into no man’s land. This is not an acceptable way to protect the precious union.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
With the greatest respect, I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord. Protecting the union and ensuring that we uphold the Good Friday agreement has been central to much of the negotiations, and the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about that. That is delivered by the fact that we have got rid of the Northern Ireland backstop, and we have a new, UK-wide temporary customs arrangement which does protect the integrity of our union.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, in the referendum campaign the most prominent leader of the Brexit side, Mr Boris Johnson, famously said that we can have our cake and eat it too. Another prominent leader, Michael Gove, said during that campaign that, the day we leave, all the cards will be in our hands. In the light of events, does the Minister feel the British public were given honest and responsible advice on that occasion?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I respect the British people. They made a decision for us to leave, and we are delivering on that decision.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister’s Statement said that we are going to re-establish an independent foreign policy and, at the same time, close and continuous security and foreign policy co-operation with the members of the EU. How do we reconcile that? Will we be allowed to say no whenever we feel like it but the others will be compelled to collaborate with us, or are we actually talking about sharing sovereignty and security despite the rhetoric of independence?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the outline political declaration shows, we have reached consensus on key elements of our future internal security partnership—as I mentioned, on extradition, data exchange, fingerprints, DNA, vehicle records and passenger name records. On foreign, security and defence policy, we have agreed arrangements for consultation and co-operation on sanctions, participation in missions and operations, defence capability development and intelligence exchanges. As I said, now that we have agreed the withdrawal agreement, we will be able to get into the detail of the future relationship. Both sides are very clear that security is a key area in which we want to continue to have a very strong partnership.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has confirmed that, as of 29 March next year, the United Kingdom will leave the common agricultural and fisheries policies. As it stands today, there is a complete vacuum on what the policies of this country will be for agriculture and fisheries. Negative instruments are being proposed, and the Agriculture Bill is completely policy free. What timetable do the Minister and the Cabinet propose for putting before this House the five or six remaining Bills and the thousands of statutory instruments that have to be adopted before we leave?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As my noble friend rightly says, we have an Agriculture Bill; a fisheries Bill will come soon. Legislation will continue to be put forward in the House, and we now move towards talking about our future partnership. But we will now also have the capability to decide our own agriculture and fisheries policies as we leave the EU.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I urge the Minister not to repeat the fiction that it is either this deal—almost certainly dead in the water—or no deal, which would be disastrous. Parliament has the power, the opportunity and, I would submit, the duty to take back control of this whole disastrous saga, including the option of a people’s vote giving the people a final say on whether they want to remain in the European Union. All the alternatives before us at present are far inferior to that.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I have been quite clear that we will not be having a second referendum. We have had a people’s vote, and we are now delivering on that. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right that the withdrawal agreement and implementation treaty will be brought forward to the House and there will be opportunity for both the House of Commons and this House to scrutinise it and discuss it. It will be for Parliament to pass it.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the question of immigration was a major factor in the referendum. Can she explain why these documents, apart from dealing with the rights of EU citizens in the UK and vice versa, are virtually silent on this important issue?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We will end free movement when we leave the EU, which means that we will develop our own independent immigration policy. We will bring forward a White Paper setting out those thoughts shortly.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, there is consensus across the House that this deal will not get a majority in the other place. What is the Government’s plan B? As we see it, a no-deal scenario happens automatically, unless the Government and Parliament decide to stay in the EU until a deal can be reached or decide to organise a second referendum. What do the Government make of the more hysterical claims of Brexiteers about Northern Ireland, which has been the pinch point all along? I am thinking especially of the claim that there are no trading, constitutional or legal differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, when we all know that there are already significant differences on agriculture, animal checks, future corporation tax, abortion and same-sex marriage—I could go on.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am not going to prejudge what the other place does in relation to its decision on this deal. As noble Lords have rightly said, it will have a vote on this deal. We believe it is the best deal and we will be encouraging the other place to support it, and I believe that it will.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, one of the consequences for our fisheries is that the negotiations will lead to the regulation of fisheries in a non-discriminatory manner and to the putting in place of an agreement on quotas and access to waters which will continue after the transition period. Does that not indicate that the promise made by Brexit supporters to fishing communities, that Britain would have total control of its fishing waters and unlimited access to the fish regardless of international agreements, was not realistic?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
No. We will retain and bring back access to our own waters. We will deliver on the referendum.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, under the proposed deal, during the implementation period the UK would be subject to all EU rules, including on freedom of movement. Why then does my right honourable friend the Prime Minister continue to rule out membership of the European Economic Area and the European Free Trade Association as an alternative interim state?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We have negotiated an implementation period, and that is what we shall deliver to ensure that we do not have a cliff edge. We will negotiate a strong new partnership with the EU, which will serve us both well in the future.
Privileges and Conduct
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
15:10 - Division on Lord Pannick’s amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 101 / Noes: 78 - Lord Pannick’s amendment to the Motion agreed.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the 2nd Report from the Select Committee (The conduct of Lord Lester of Herne Hill) (HL Paper 220) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will speak also to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
The report before us relates to a finding that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, sexually harassed the complainant, offered her a corrupt inducement to have sex with him and warned her of unspecified consequences if she did not accept his offer. The complaint was investigated by the House’s independent Commissioner for Standards. She found that the conduct of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was in breach of the provision in our code of conduct that all members must act on their personal honour. The commissioner’s findings were considered by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, whose role it is to recommend an appropriate sanction. That sub-committee recommended that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, should be expelled from the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, appealed to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct against the findings and the sanction. That committee considered a detailed set of papers on appeal and heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in person. We dismissed the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, against the finding that he had breached the code and we endorsed both the approach and the conclusions of the commissioner.
In relation to the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, against sanction, we upheld his appeal against expulsion and recommend instead a period of suspension. The committee was conscious that at the time of the breach of the code, the power to expel a Member of the House, which has now been conferred by the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, was not available. At the time the noble Lord, Lord Lester, breached the code the maximum sanction available was suspension to the end of the Parliament in which the suspension started. We concluded that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, should be suspended for a period coterminous with the maximum expected length of the present Parliament. We accordingly recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, be suspended from the House until 3 June 2022. I should be clear that this is our recommendation to the House irrespective of whether or not a general election takes place before 2022.
My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I say a few words in anticipation of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The amendment suggests that the Commissioner for Standards did not conduct her investigation in a way that conformed with natural justice and fairness. This is a serious claim and one that the Committee for Privileges and Conduct considered very carefully, because it was a central point of the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We were very clear in paragraph 12 of our report that we did not,
“accept Lord Lester’s contention that the Commissioner was at fault in the way she carried out her investigation”.
That was the unanimous position of all 14 members of the committee. In coming to that position we listened with particular care to the opinions of two of our members with considerable judicial experience, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Hope of Craighead. I hope that they will both speak later in this debate.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, directs us to consider the procedures the commissioner followed in her investigation. Let me remind the House what they are. They are set out in the guide to the code and they are kept under review by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, chaired by another member with considerable judicial experience, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood.
Paragraph 124 of the guide to the code states:
“Proceedings are not adversarial, but inquisitorial in character.”
Then paragraph 127 says:
“Complainants have no formal locus once an investigation is under way: they have no right to be called as a witness, though they are expected to co-operate with any investigation and to supply all the evidence in their possession when asked to do so. Nor do members accused of misconduct have any entitlement to cross-examine complainants, though they are given an opportunity to review and, if they so wish, challenge the factual basis of any evidence supplied by complainants or others”.
Lord Pannick
To leave out “agreed to” and insert “remitted to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct because the Commissioner for Standards failed to comply with paragraph 21 of the Code of Conduct which required her to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness.”
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Deputy Speaker for the way in which he has introduced this difficult matter. I declare my interests. I have been a close friend of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and we were colleagues at the Bar for almost 40 years. I assisted him during the process before the Commissioner for Standards and indeed at the hearing before the Committee for Privileges, but I was not allowed, because of the procedures of this House, to speak on his behalf either before the commissioner or before the committee.
I do not know—your Lordships cannot know either—whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, committed the acts alleged against him. I would be very surprised if he did but I do not know. However, I know that the procedure applied by the Commissioner for Standards was manifestly unfair. If you are going to assess the credibility of competing contentions as to what occurred nearly 12 years ago, apply a very serious sanction against someone and destroy their hitherto unblemished reputation, you have to allow them, through their counsel, to cross-examine the person making the allegations, which turn on credibility. At the very least, the commissioner should appoint independent counsel to perform that cross-examination; that would also be acceptable.
Paragraph 21 of our code of conduct is very clear. I am sorry that the Senior Deputy Speaker did not mention it. It states that the commissioner,
“shall act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness”.
The fact of the matter is that in every other regulatory, disciplinary or employment context in this country, if you are accused of serious misconduct where the issue turns on credibility and you face a serious sanction, you are entitled to your legal right to cross-examine the person making the allegations against you so that their credibility—and yours, because you must be cross-examined as well—can be properly assessed and determined. I find it quite astonishing that this House, which lays down the law for everybody, does not comply with these basic standards of fairness. With great respect to the Senior Deputy Speaker, the question is not about whether the commissioner is distinguished—she is—or whether she carried out this function very carefully; no doubt she did her best. It is essentially a question of principle. Can she fairly determine an issue that turns on credibility when she did not allow for any possibility of cross-examination?
The Senior Deputy Speaker relied on the guide to our code of conduct, paragraph 127 of which states, as he accurately pointed out:
“Nor do members accused of misconduct have any entitlement to cross-examine complainants”.
Of course they have no such entitlement, because fairness does not require cross-examination in all cases. In many cases, credibility is not an issue, but that paragraph cannot mean that the commissioner lacks any power or duty to allow for cross-examination if and when fairness so requires. If that paragraph so provided, it would conflict with the governing position in paragraph 21 of our code of conduct, which requires the commissioner to act in accordance with “natural justice and fairness”. In any event, even if our code were followed by the commissioner—which was not the case—the question before the House is whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was treated fairly and in accordance with natural justice by being denied the opportunity for cross-examination. It is very important to emphasise to the House that this is not a lawyer’s point. It is inherent in the very concept of fairness.
It is also important to emphasise to the House that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wanted the right to cross-examine not because of some abstract principle but because of what he sees as the gaps and inconsistencies in the case against him—as to when the harassment is said to have occurred, what meetings Ms Sanghera says she was denied access to and, most fundamentally of all, between her allegations and her own conduct. Your Lordships may have seen in the report that, one week after the alleged events, she signed her book for the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in affectionate terms. I quote:
“Anthony … Thank you so much for your love and support. It has been my pleasure to meet you … Love and admiration.”
One week after the alleged events, she expressed “admiration”. Two and a half years later, she sent him another book thanking him for his support and signing it—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I feel that the noble Lord is asking us to judge again this case, which is not appropriate for us, because our legal knowledge is not sufficient.
Lord Pannick
I emphasise to the noble Baroness and noble Lords that I am most definitely not asking the House to take sides as to who is telling the truth and who is not. I am citing these matters as briefly as I can because, in the circumstances of this case, fairness cried out for cross-examination. I am giving an example of why, in the absence of cross-examination, fairness could not be achieved. I was telling the House that, two and a half years after the alleged events, Ms Sanghera sent the noble Lord, Lord Lester, another book thanking him for his support and signing it, with “love and respect”.
A great authority on evidence, Dean Wigmore, said—and he was right—that cross-examination is,
“the greatest … engine ever invented for the discovery of truth”.
I remind your Lordships that in 1999 the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, stated at paragraph 281 that when the House deals with serious cases of contempt it is,
“essential that committees of both Houses should follow procedures providing safeguards at least as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies”.
The Joint Committee set out what it described as a series of “minimum requirements of fairness” for a Member accused of wrongdoing. Those minimum requirements included,
“the opportunity to examine other witnesses”.
Mention has been made by the Senior Deputy Speaker of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, himself in the case of Lord Taylor of Blackburn, who was disciplined for dishonest expenses claims, but what is fair depends on the context. The context in the present case is an allegation of misconduct nearly 12 years ago dependent on the competing credibility of two people. In any event, what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in 2009 cannot be determinative of the standards of fairness.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, put before the Committee for Privileges an independent opinion from David Perry QC, who had advised Parliament in relation to its code of practice. He said that, given the serious nature of the allegations and the time that had elapsed since the events in question, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had been denied a basic requirement of fairness in the circumstances of this case. He also made many other criticisms which I will not deal with.
Sexual harassment and abuse of power are serious wrongs and nothing that I say is intended to diminish their gravity, but those who are accused of such offences are entitled to have their cases fairly and properly considered. The more serious the allegation and the more severe the penalty, the greater the obligation on us to act fairly. The noble Lord is facing suspension for nearly four years and his reputation has been destroyed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the statement in the Code of Conduct requiring the commissioner to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness transcends any statement in the guidance to the code that limits the cross-examination of witnesses. In an appropriate case, the evidence requires to be tested—and I can think of no more appropriate case than this, where the international reputation of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is threatened by an allegation more than 12 years old of harassment, which is a criminal offence. The consequences for him are immense.
There is a further aspect of these proceedings which concerns me. The code does not lay down any detailed process for the investigation of complaints. The proceedings are inquisitorial, which means that the commissioner acts as both investigator and judge. Ironically, the working party, which published its Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme Delivery Report last July, recommends that the roles be separated: there should be an investigator to investigate and report and a decision-making body to receive the report and determine the complaint.
Without an explicit process to follow in this case, the commissioner made up her own. Her lack of forensic experience—although she is a very distinguished lawyer in other respects—and her lack of confidence are demonstrated by the need, as she saw it, to consult a friendly judge for guidance. She collected the evidence, interviewed such witnesses as she chose in informal interviews, some of them merely on the telephone, and ignored other witnesses suggested to her by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. She then came to a judgment on the facts and upheld the complaint. Her findings of fact under the code could not be reopened before the sub-committee on conduct, nor on the appeal before the full committee. The challenge on appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had to be as to the fairness of her investigation and the process by which she came to her conclusion. It was not and could not be a rehearing of the facts.
The commissioner made mistakes. For example, her approach to the evidence was in my view to reverse the burden of proof and to apply a standard of proof which did not reflect the severity of the consequences of her findings. I remind the House that the guidance at paragraph 128 states that in order to find against a Member,
“the Commissioner will require at least”—
at least—
“that the allegation is proved on the balance of probabilities”.
That means that in appropriate cases, the standard of proof should be higher than a mere 51 to 49. There are other flaws of forensic analysis which I will not trouble your Lordships with.
The most extraordinary aspect of these proceedings, however, was that the commissioner made herself a party to the appeal process. Between pages 94 and 111 of the report, there is set out the commissioner’s point-by-point refutation of the grounds of appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This is the first time that I have ever come across a judge making herself the respondent to an appeal against her own judgment.
So what submissions did she make to the appellate committee? First, she said that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, did not accept the legitimacy of her investigation. This is not surprising, since we are about to scrap it anyway when the report of the working party is received and put into effect. Secondly, she said that, as the noble Lord, Lord McFall, pointed out, the noble Lord had spoken in support of the procedures in 2009, when the question of the conduct of the four Peers who had been convicted by criminal processes was dealt with. The commissioner criticised the status of counsel’s opinion—Mr Perry’s opinion. She questioned the independence of his opinion of leading counsel, on the basis that he was instructed by the solicitors of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In paragraph 30, she said that its status was,
“only an opinion, not an accepted decision made in an adversarial court”.
There is an irony in that, is there not?
Paragraph 31 states:
“In a standard appeal the appellant (Lord Lester) and the respondent (me) would both put up legal arguments (opinions) as to why the appeal should, or should not be allowed. I do not have that option, as the processes set out in the Code do not permit this. However, what I can say is that, if I had that opportunity, I have no doubt that I would be able to obtain a reputable, eminent opinion that disagreed in many, if not all, respects from that of Mr Perry and Ms Davidson”.
That is her view: she described herself as the respondent to the appeal. Nothing in the code suggests that the commissioner is entitled to such a role.
She then criticised the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to introduce fresh evidence and submitted in paragraph 34:
“The Committee will be aware that it is not its role to reopen the investigation, but simply to ‘use their judgment to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, they endorse the conclusions of the Commissioner’”.
She added:
“I do not believe the Committee should admit”,
this fresh evidence,
“or use it to re-open the investigation”.
These are submissions made by the judge, the finder of fact whose facts could not be challenged—and there she was, defending the process.
She continued to assert that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was responsible for any inaccuracies in his grounds of appeal and alleges that he was guilty of unsatisfactory conduct during her investigations. In paragraphs 53 to 103 she sets out point by point her challenge to his grounds of appeal and her defence of her own conduct of the investigation. She—the judge against whom the appeal is being made—concludes in Paragraph 104:
“For the reasons set out in this paper and in the appendix to this paper I am confident in my findings and in the processes I applied throughout my investigation. I ask the Committee to dismiss Lord Lester’s appeal against my findings”.
I very much doubt that as a part-time judge in a mental health tribunal the commissioner has ever appeared in the Upper Tribunal to argue against an appellant appealing her own judgment and inviting the Upper Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.
So how did this travesty happen? Was she invited by the clerk or the chairman of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct to make these representations? Or did she jump into the arena of her own accord? Did the noble Lord, Lord Lester, consent to this? Was he asked whether she should make herself a respondent to the appeal?
The proceedings before the Committee for Privileges and Conduct were remarkable. Any Member who is brought before it on a charge of not acting on his or her personal honour should bear in mind that, however ancient the allegation, however old you are—the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is 82—however much you may have been touched by dementia like Lord Janner, whatever stress or illness you may be suffering—and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was defending the potential ruin of a lifetime’s reputation—you, every one of you, will be on your own. You cannot have anyone speak for you, much less present your case—and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was there ready to do it.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
While my noble friend is setting out a very cogent case as a lawyer, does he accept that the commissioner was appointed by this House and that he and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, need to accept that the procedures are the procedures that were adopted by this House and that, whether they are fit for purpose or not, they are the procedures that we have today? They are the procedures that will affect all of us as we sit here in this House. It is our honour and our integrity, and my noble friend impugning the integrity of someone this House has appointed does not help the case of his and my noble friend Lord Lester.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
They may be here today, but they will be scrapped next week when the report of the committee is received. This is the only time that these procedures have been used in a sexual harassment case. That is why the commissioner was left on her own to invent the procedures.
My noble friend Lord Lester was entitled reasonably to expect that he could present his grounds of appeal to the committee without them being undermined beforehand by the submissions of the commissioner. Her submissions were before the committee in written form, but she was never required to present them in person to have them examined, questioned and tested. By contrast, as the report shows, my noble friend Lord Lester was given 30 minutes to make his oral submissions and, contrary to the traditions of the Judicial Committee of this House, of happy memory, he was heard in silence without the engagement, questioning, teasing out of points or discussion of any of the matters raised by the commissioner by way of refutation. He was not questioned at all.
Lest the commissioner or anyone else, including my noble friend, should suspect that I am acting as a mouthpiece of my noble friend Lord Lester, let me make it clear that although on many occasions I have worked with him in this House and many times deferred to his views in the field of human and women’s rights, our paths have not crossed socially or professionally. I have had no discussion with him at any stage or with anyone else, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about these allegations and was unaware of the progress of these proceedings until I read the report on Monday evening. The analysis of the report that I have set out is entirely mine, and I do not pretend to speak for my party in any way.
After 22 years in this House, I am distressed at the distance that I consider the House has fallen from fairness and natural justice. I am also shocked that, after all the attempts to protect the identity of the complainant and redact the report, she herself, on the day that this report was published, should have given an exclusive interview to the Times together with personal photographs. If anything goes to credibility, that does. It makes a mockery of our procedures, and I can only hope that a charity has fully benefited from her.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if it would be of assistance to the House if I were to speak next. I should explain that one of my duties as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers is to sit upon the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. That is a responsibility that I bear on behalf of my colleagues on the Cross Benches, and I had the important duty of sitting on this particular committee. I shall explain succinctly why I felt unable to accept the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the commissioner was at fault in the way that she carried out her investigation. I have of course listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Pannick has said in presenting the amendment.
I shall concentrate on two matters: what the commissioner did and what she was required to do. The first thing that she did, as required by paragraph 119 of the guide, was to seek and obtain the agreement of the sub-committee, chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, to investigate. That is because the alleged incidents occurred more than four years before the complaint was made. She obtained that consent from the sub-committee and proceeded to receive the details of the complaint and then meet the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to provide him with the details that were contained in it.
The noble Lord then began a process of challenging the process being adopted by the commissioner. First, he asked for an alternative procedure by way of a dialogue to be adopted so that he and the complainant could meet together with the commissioner to discuss the incidents that she was complaining about. The commissioner was uncertain as to what she should do about that, so she went back to the sub-committee to find out what its advice was. In the meantime, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had complained to the sub- committee about the fairness of the procedure. The important point to note is that the commissioner was told by the sub-committee that she was bound to investigate the complaint under the procedure laid down by the code and the guide to conduct. I emphasise that point because I think it should be realised that if there is any basic fault in the procedure, which is my noble friend’s essential point, the sub-committee shares the responsibility for the way in which the case proceeded, as does the sub-committee that looked at the matter afterwards.
The instruction from the sub-committee was to follow the procedure laid down by the code and the guide. The Senior Deputy Speaker very helpfully set out a good deal of what is contained therein and I do not want to go over it, but there is a crucial passage at paragraph 124 that has to be understood and that has been in the guide for many years. It says:
“Proceedings are not adversarial, but inquisitorial in character”.
That is a crucial passage in the guide, which is followed through in the following paragraphs that talk about no entitlement to cross-examination. The point is that an adversarial process is one where cross-examination is indeed resorted to and, as I think my noble friend was suggesting, one might well have counsel to assist in putting those questions. That is the nature of the adversarial process that all of us who have sat as judges, and indeed who have appeared in courts as lawyers, are familiar with, but this was an inquisitorial process where the conduct of the inquiry was in the hands of the commissioner, appointed, as has been pointed out, by the House to conduct this process as an independent and impartial investigator.
One has to understand that because, when one comes to the phrase, which has also been quoted, that the commissioner,
“shall act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness”,
one has to understand what that phrase means. The principles of natural justice have been established in our common law for many years. There are two of them, assuming of course that the investigator is impartial. Principle number one is that the person complained against shall have fair notice of the case being made against him. Principle number two is that the person complained against shall have a fair opportunity to answer to the complaint. Those are the principles of natural justice that are universal and which are referred to in that paragraph in the guide. Cross-examination is the essence of an adversarial process, and one must assume that when the House approved the guide in this form it understood very well that this was the nature of the process that it wished to adopt. One might say that the important point was to keep the adversarial element—counsel and all the rest of it—out of it and put it in the hands of the commissioner so that she could conduct the inquiry as best she could.
If one follows through what the commissioner actually did—I do this not to reopen her inquiry, which we are not allowed to do, but to test the coherence of what she did—one sees that she interviewed the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to discuss aspects of his statement. She said she gave him the opportunity to tell her anything else that he thought was relevant, applying the principle of natural justice. Significantly, his response was to deny the allegations in every particular. As she said, his case was not that it was a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation, so either the complainant or the noble Lord was not telling the truth, and she had to decide that issue.
As we know from the report, she then contacted witnesses, and she used her discretion as to how best to do that. She provided the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with copies of the statements by these witnesses. She then considered no fewer than 12 challenges that the noble Lord made to the progress of the investigation so far. Here your Lordships see the second principle, the opportunity to reply, being applied. She then showed him her draft report. He made 10 more representations, each of which she considered and dealt with before the report was finalised. So if one works through the report, one finds that she conducted the process in accordance with fairness and the principles of natural justice.
She noted that there were discrepancies between the complainant’s statement and those of the witnesses but, as she pointed out, that was not altogether surprising in view of the lapse of time. Indeed, on the contrary, if they had been exactly fitting with each other, that might suggest collusion, which, in her judgment, was absent in this case. She accepted that the witnesses were telling the truth as best they could.
She said she did not need to examine each of the allegations in great detail, the reason being that the complaint was not said to arise from a misunderstanding or misinterpretation and she was not provided by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with material to conduct a penetrating investigation of the kind where one might put to the complainant alternative explanations for what might have happened. I think she was saying to us in the report that it was not for her to construct the noble Lord’s excuse if he did not provide that excuse to her himself.
I have two final points. She said that when she was dealing, as so often with these very difficult cases of sexual misdemeanours, with competing positions of the two people involved, on the whole she might have regarded this as a 50/50 case where the balance was not tipped against the noble Lord, Lord Lester. That was why she had regard to the witnesses to see if she could test, by some independent evidence, whether there was a cogent reason for preferring the complainant’s account of what had occurred. All that is perfectly orthodox, coherent and understandable.
The last and most important point is one that every judge who sits in an appeal has to appreciate and I suggest to your Lordships that we should grasp it too: the commissioner had the great advantage of seeing, interviewing and assessing the complainant herself. We do not have that advantage. The commissioner’s advantage is one that she alone had, and it was her assessment of credibility that was crucial to the determination of this case.
There has been a lot of criticism of the commissioner’s conduct. I respectfully suggest that she conducted the process to the best of her ability and in accordance with the rules provided for her by the House, which the House looked at in 2010, for example, and has not sought leave to change. I do not think the process could be said to have been at fault if tested by the principles of natural justice and fairness, and I respectfully submit to your Lordships that the amendment should not be agreed to.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, as a non-lawyer, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pannick and agree with everything he said. In doing so, I recognise that I am raising serious doubts about the fairness of our procedures in cases such as this involving sexual abuse and harassment. I also recognise that my actions could be interpreted by people outside the House as special pleading for one of our own. This latter point is in no way my intention, and I claim in no way whatever that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is innocent. I simply do not know. I am not a personal friend of the noble Lord, although I have known him for more than 20 years, and I do not know him socially.
My only concern is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Pannick: that we are operating a flawed system that can unfairly totally damage a distinguished person’s life and reputation. As I said, I am not a lawyer, but I have been involved in a case where I was cross-examined in a tribunal when I sacked a black manager for sexually abusing a child in care. I accepted that cross-examination because I had taken a serious action that would damage that individual and their livelihood. I was cross-examined for more than an hour about my actions and the evidence I had for taking those actions. So I have had the experience of being cross-examined and having my judgments tested in, in effect, a court.
At the heart of my concern is whether our procedures are fit for purpose to deal with allegations of historic sexual abuse or harassment. That is the issue. These are notoriously difficult issues to address fairly, as other jurisdictions have found. I accept that we do not wish to prevent complainants—very often women —coming forward, often after a long period after inappropriate conduct has occurred. Equally, we now have enough experience of false claims to know that evidence must be properly tested before people’s reputations—usually men’s—are trashed unfairly. This balance can be difficult to achieve to everyone’s satisfaction, particularly given the historical discrimination against women.
In this case, my reservations about accepting this report as it stands turn on whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was given an adequate opportunity to legally and forensically test the credibility of the complainant’s evidence before adjudication was made. I do not think, on the evidence available to me in the report, that he has. That therefore could lead to a possible unfair adjudication that destroys his reputation.
Given the serious consequences of the report for the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I feel extremely uncomfortable about simply nodding it through because it conforms with flawed guidance that we have given the commissioner. I can also foresee that if we do not examine our procedures more carefully now, we could mishandle many further cases that come forward. You would have to be a great optimist to think that there will never be further cases. For those reasons, if my noble friend Lord Pannick wishes to test the opinion of the House, I will support him.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, am not a lawyer and I venture into this space with great trepidation, having heard the speeches that have gone before, but the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for whom I have the greatest respect—I mean that very sincerely—has moved an amendment which we are now discussing. The amendment tells us that it is his view that the commissioner failed in her duty. That is not the same as suggesting that our procedures are flawed. Our procedures may well be flawed, but that is not what we are debating.
What has occurred this morning and in the lead-up to this debate—the comment in the press and elsewhere—is that the commissioner is being traduced. What is being said of her is that either she is incompetent or she acted in bad faith. Both of those are very serious allegations—
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
Well, my Lords, I say that for this reason. It has not been put to us in the amendment that the Code of Conduct and the guidance that goes with it is flawed. That has been said by other speakers, but it is not in the amendment. The amendment says that the commissioner has failed to apply the Code of Conduct and the guidance that goes with it effectively and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness.
If it is not said that the Code of Conduct is in itself flawed and therefore cannot be applied in that way, the fault appears to be hers and it therefore must be—must it not?—that she has applied it either because she is incompetent or knowing that she was applying it unfairly. That is a grave allegation to make against someone who this House has appointed to carry out its wishes in respect of a Code of Conduct which, we are now being told, is or may be flawed and is or may be in the process of being discarded. She could only apply the Code of Conduct before her at the time of the investigation.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case that she considered—like everyone else here, I am in no position, nor would I wish, to make any comment on that at all—it is, and I shall choose my words carefully here, perhaps regrettable that Members of the House have chosen to attack a public servant who is acting on its behalf when there is apparently no evidence that she acted either incompetently or in bad faith. For that reason, I must say that I cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, it is with degrees of trepidation that I take part in this debate, particularly as it is dominated by wonderful legal brains. My reason for speaking is that many years back now, I was asked by the then Leader of the House to lead the group that was to set up the Code of Conduct. In November 2009, our recommendations for the Code of Conduct were unanimously accepted by this House. Since then, with some technical adjustments, that code has remained in place and we have all lived with it, under it and, in a sense, for it. It is on a sad day—I use those words explicitly—such as this that we have to re-examine what we have accepted for many years. I am therefore in no way questioning what has been said in the amendment by my noble friend Lord Pannick, nor what has been argued by other lawyers. I want briefly to appeal to the House to remember that in the early stages of our current Code of Conduct, there was real anxiety on the part of the House that it should not become a lawyer’s charter and that we should avoid the adversarial approach to cases that were brought before us.
The background to that early production of a code was the self-regulation philosophy of your Lordships’ House. We have protected that and argued for it over the years, and it is something that we should be proud of and protect to the end as being one of the strengths of your Lordships’ House. So it was in those early days, when people argued that there would be occasions such as this when a case would be raised which would have something to do with the wording of the code, that we had to have some form in which we could avoid that adversarial approach or, I say again, the lawyer’s charter.
We came up with a phrase which has now endured all those years. It is simply put: personal honour. If you examine the wording of the report which we produced, and which still stands on page 4 of the Code of Conduct, you will see that we tried to analyse what personal honour means. We did so in ways and in words that I believe envelop individual cases, not least the case of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In the list of the words that we have put in our report, we have covered virtually every incidence that could come before the Privileges Committee and then to this House; for example, selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness and honesty are some of the words that we suggested. I am not referring to the individual facts of this case, but I am defending the Code of Conduct and our method of investigating issues such as this case, and appealing to the House to remember that the spirit of this House demands the degrees of honesty and consistency, which I submit is present in the way in which we operate the Code of Conduct in this House.
Lord Woolf (CB)
I have listened to the speeches that have already been made, and I start off by declaring my interest. I am afraid that, in relation to issues before us, I have more than one interest to declare to the House. The first is that I have known the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for many years, and my family and his family are friends. I emphasise that I am not acting on his behalf; I was never approached to act on his behalf in submitting to this House my view on the issues before us. Secondly, I emphasise my professional career as it appears in the register, which I do not need to elaborate on because I know it is before the House and, I respectfully say, speaks for itself.
I should disclose that I have conducted a number of investigations. I have been fortunate in that I have been entrusted by Governments, not only in this country but in others, to conduct those investigations and advise. I disclose that I am the editor of one of the leading textbooks, now in its eighth edition, which deals fully with the question of natural justice. I refer to that because natural justice is central to the issues before us. Although the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, is absolutely right about the problems of getting involved with court procedures—to use a euphemism for what he was seeking to describe—the fact is that whether you are deterred by that or anything else, anyone whose life’s work and reputation, acquired during his working life, are challenged is entitled to natural justice as a minimum, basic element of any form of investigation. Knowing what natural justice is, and being conscious that we are at the 20th anniversary of the Human Rights Act, I emphasise that that is particularly important when a person is put in a position such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
The word adversarial is one that nearly always involves cross-examination. But the word inquisitorial does not mean that you cannot have cross-examination. That is contrary to the sense of the word, and the ignorance about that is very worrying to me. For a time, I was chairman—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, is now—of the sub-committee which dealt with these matters as they then were. Having done that job for a time, I decided that the provisions were wholly unsuited to the purpose they were meant to cover. I was deeply uncomfortable that they were not fit for purpose, and I made that clear to the authorities of the House. That is based on my experience, to which I made reference.
With that background, I come to look at the code as it is now. There is nothing that I would object to in it. There is nothing I would object to in many cases—not allowing lawyers to come anywhere near the process—but I emphasise that that is on the basis of looking at the issues that have to be determined and deciding what procedure is appropriate. The ones we are dealing with—what the commission had to deal with and two committees had to consider, as well as the commissioner—were peculiarly difficult to resolve in some cases. They are peculiarly difficult especially when there is a sexual connotation, which is what is complained of here.
I go back a long way as a judge and barrister, and remember when it was required in common law that when an allegation is made, corroboration is required. In addition, it was the duty of judges to warn a jury that it was dangerous to convict unless there was corroboration. It was also well-established that complaints made at the time are not corroboration. I say that only because—I do not blame the commissioner—the position in law today is much more flexible. A complaint is not corroboration but it is very easy to see it as such, and the commissioner in this case saw it as corroboration. She was saying that because of the complaint, there was no need to investigate other things. She was wrong on that because unfortunately, the common law acknowledged what we have to acknowledge today: that there are sometimes motives for making false allegations in cases involving sexual conduct which disguise the reality of the situation.
It is all too easy to say that, because a complaint is made, the matter is proved, because you think that the person who gives evidence of the complaint is speaking the truth. They may be, but that does not avoid the need to answer the question whether the person making the complaint is telling the truth when she makes it. This is just the basic experience of lawyers such as myself who have had to try these cases.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I asked to speak because I was leader of the Liberal Democrats for nine years from 2004 to 2013 and this case happened on my watch. I understand the difficult task of getting the balance right in the system. There is a worrying development, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has rightly said. We have to get the right decision in terms of fairness and natural justice. Simply getting behind the commissioner because we have appointed her or because this committee, or that committee, or the Senior Deputy Speaker has put his name to it, misses the point.
The report has been put before the House for debate and, I hope, for the Senior Deputy Speaker to listen to what has been said. If we just follow the book, if we just make it that the rules are the rules, we are in grave danger of a great miscarriage of justice. I have two hopes: first, that the Front Bench, which I see is getting very restless, realises that this goes to the very heart of what this House is about and that those who want to speak in this debate should be heard, because it is very important; and, secondly, that in listening to the debate, the Senior Deputy Speaker will realise that some very valid points have been made and need to be addressed.
Benjamin Franklin said:
“It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it”.
We know how easily a reputation can be destroyed and how difficult historical cases are. We have only just come through the passage of suffering that had to be faced by Lord Guthrie and the family of Lord Brittan before their historic cases were dealt with. In destroying a reputation we have to be very careful that the accused has protections as well. Certainly in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Lester—Anthony—the report makes it very clear what is at stake in paragraph 11:
“for decades past the respondent has been one of the most widely known, effective and admired of those campaigning for racial and sexual equality in this country, a renowned supporter of human rights and freedoms across the board”.
What has been on trial is that reputation, which is not something that should be destroyed by a flawed process on the balance of probabilities.
I said in opening that I had been leader of the Lib Dems; I have also known the noble Lord, Lord Lester for over 40 years. Given that one of the “public interest” reasons given in paragraph 42 by the commissioner for initiating her inquiry was:
“Those who behave in the way alleged sometimes do so repeatedly”,
let me put it on record that, until the matter came to light, I had never heard any such accusation being made against the noble Lord. It is interesting that we have not seen any evidence that the complaint was part of a “pattern of behaviour” that the commissioner was seeking.
I have acknowledged the difficulty of getting the balance right between complainant and accused. This is doubly difficult in dealing with historic cases, and even more so when what was in operation was not a tried and tested process but one created ad hoc because the code, as it existed, did not cover sexual harassment. I was in fact on the committee—with the noble and right reverend Lord, whom I still refer to as the Bishop—when we put together that code. What happened, as we know, was instigated by a journalist who was known to the complainant and who set up the ground rules for what became the complaint by questions in a letter set out in paragraph 34. They raised no specific case but produced the reply set out in paragraph 35. The ad hoc nature of those ground rules is conceded in the final sentence of paragraph 35:
“It would be open to the House in the future to amend the Code of Conduct to require members to abide by an anti-harassment policy”.
So this is a work in progress. Nobody has ever been tried for sexual harassment under that code. We are in grave danger of finding, through this debate and rigorous examination by this House, the flaws in the code, but of leaving the noble Lord, Lord Lester, stranded on the sandbank of rectitude because we have to back the commissioner and the recommendations before us. That is not what this House is about. That is not why this report is on the Order Paper—it is so that this House can give it rigorous examination and, if it has failings, for those in charge to have the courage to say that they will take it back and look at whether those grounds are sustainable.
I am not a lawyer so I will not go into the matter of the cross-examination, although I think that, for those who have not gone through all the report, the constant use of the term “witnesses” is misleading. There were no witnesses to this event, other than the complainant and the noble Lord. The nearest that there was to a witness was Lady Lester. We must not bandy about that the complainant had six witnesses in her support; she had six people who heard her account of what had happened. The case is about the relations, the things between them after the event, but I notice even today that in her book Shame Travels, published in 2011, her publishers quote the noble Lord, Lord Lester, making a complimentary comment about the book. It seems strange, but never mind.
It was also in the report that somehow the complainant was overawed by the power of the House of Lords. But as the noble Lord points out in paragraph 121—and as we now know because she published her name herself—the lady in question was in her forties and a “confident and determined campaigner”. She is more than that: she is a very successful woman who, at the time we are discussing, was in her mid-forties and had been rightly recognised, both nationally and internationally, for her courage in standing up for women, including powerful and life-threatening prejudices within her own community. Likewise, the idea of her being promised a peerage in exchange for sexual favours is I think given far too much credibility in the report. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right in paragraph 56 when he says:
“I have no power to make such offers or threats in respect of peerages”.
Yet it is the accusation of “peerage for sex” that seems to have tipped the balance towards bringing the case within the remit of the code of conduct—and of course given it extra media appeal.
In many ways, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, lost his reputation at the outset of the investigation, when reports appeared in the Times and, a little later, the Sun—the two papers to which the complainant also revealed her identity immediately after the report was published. Yet the commissioner can only say about the initial flagrant breach of confidentiality:
“I have no evidence as to the source of the press reports”.
I notice that the Senior Deputy Speaker did not even refer to what I think was the most serious breach of confidentiality during the process, which was that leak to the press.
When we get to the issue of exceptional circumstances, which caused the commissioner to waive the four-year rule to let in a complaint over 10 years old, the first two reasons given in paragraph 41 have nothing to do with the merits of the case. They refer to,
“the current concern of Parliament to deal with sexual misconduct by its members”,
and,
“the publicity given to endemic sexual misconduct and abuse of power in many fields of work, which encouraged the complainant to come forward”.
We must not be intimidated by the present atmosphere about sexual harassment to make the wrong decision in this case just because of that current climate.
Finally, I come to the draconian sentence of four years for a man of 82, which was changed from complete expulsion only because of a technicality. I in no way belittle the seriousness of the complaint, but the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is quite right: this will not be the last case of sexual harassment that we get, and given that my noble friend Lord Lester was accused of an indecent proposition, I wonder what the committee will recommend for more serious cases of sexual harassment. By deciding on expulsion, it seems to have gone for bust in the very first case.
If the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, decides to divide the House, I will be in the Lobby with him. But I sincerely hope that what was said and will be said in this debate is that the House should be doing its proper duty in this process. That proper duty is not to rubber stamp, tick a box, or to give votes of confidence to this or that chairman, but to get the right decision about the person we are dealing with at this time.
This case did not merit breaking the four-year rule, with all the dangers of historic cases. The process is flawed—the committee has conceded that it is looking for a major review. But most of all, a lifetime’s reputation should not be destroyed on a “balance of probabilities”. For those cogent reasons, we have got this wrong and we should have the courage to say so.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
I have known the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for 60 years and declare at the outset that I should be very surprised if he were guilty of the offences alleged, but that is immaterial; I cannot know what happened, neither can any of us know what happened. My concern is entirely with the process by which the conclusion in this report has been reached. We have had a number of weighty and wise speeches, so I can be very brief.
I was worried as the debate began that the speeches of some contributors seemed more about whether we should support the process or whether we should be more concerned about whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had received a fair crack of the whip, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, put it. Our priority must be to ensure that these allegations are properly investigated and tested and that both the complainant and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, are subjected to the most intense examination so that a view can be formed.
Whether or not our processes are fit for purpose is another matter. On the basis of the debate so far, I have come to the conclusion that, in matters of this kind, our processes are not fit for purpose. They may well be fit for purpose in allegations regarding expenses and things of that sort, but this is a very different sort of situation. We should have the courage to recognise that a process that is satisfactory in one set of circumstances is not satisfactory in this set of circumstances. I hope very much that, either as a result of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, dividing the House, or as a result of the Senior Deputy Speaker withdrawing his Motion, it will be possible for a second look to be taken.
So far as the case against the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is concerned, it really does seem to me incredible—and I am not a lawyer—that such a serious matter can be concluded on the basis of a balance of probabilities and, as is said in paragraph 18, of the commissioner considering that,
“she was more likely than not to have been telling the truth”.
“More likely than not” and “balance of probabilities” seem wholly inadequate in a situation of this sort. We should, as far as possible, get beyond all reasonable doubt.
I also refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who talked about his experience of cross-examination, and I should like to do the same. I remember vividly an occasion when I appeared before a Board of Trade inquiry—it was investigating not me but someone else—and gave evidence on oath. I was absolutely convinced that what I was saying was right; all the events had occurred many years before but I was convinced that my memory was serving me correctly. I remembered where the individuals had sat at the board meeting in question and what people had said. Under cross-examination, however, it was borne in upon me that, although almost all my recollections were correct, I had the date of the meeting wrong. I had no interest in giving false evidence. I was trying to help the inquiry. I got almost everything I remembered right, but I got the date wrong, and the date was a very material point. That is why it is simply not good enough for the commissioner to say:
“I considered that she was more likely than not to have been telling the truth”.
I am sure that the witness, or whatever the appropriate word is, was telling the truth, but that does not mean that she was right. That can be determined only as a result of cross-examination.
I will not delay the House any longer. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said almost everything that could possibly have been said, in the most convincing fashion, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made a very powerful speech. I was certainly impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had to say. In this case, justice is not being done. That is not a judgment on whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is guilty or not, or on whether he or the complainant is telling the truth. My judgment is based on the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has not been given a fair crack of the whip. We owe it to the honour of this House and the honour of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to ensure that he is given one.
Finally, in recent years a number of institutions, when dealing with questions of sexual harassment and other matters, have put the interests of the institution and its rules ahead of justice towards the individuals. There is a great danger that we are going to become too bound up in our own rules and too little concerned with the fate of the man at the centre of the allegations.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I feel impelled to add something because of the importance of this debate, although I appreciate that many other noble Lords have already spoken. I declare a number of interests. First, I have known the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for many years; he used to appear before me, and he is in fact a friend. I also know Jasvinder Sanghera quite well. She is a member of a commission on forced marriage which I chair, and I greatly admire the work that she has done with Karma Nirvana to move forward the work on behalf of women who are victims of forced marriage. As it happens, I also know the commissioner well, because she and I were fellow members of a panel appointing Queen’s Counsel which I briefly chaired. I have the greatest possible respect and admiration for her. I thought it was important to say that because they are basically the three important people about whom we are speaking.
For me, the issue here is not the guilt or innocence of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. That is why we are here, but this is a matter of principle and a matter of enormous importance, as a number of other speakers have said. The wider issue for this House is how it should arrange for allegations of serious misconduct attaching to the personal honour of a Peer, particularly in the contexts of not only sexual abuse but abuse of power, because that is the most important allegation—that he offered her the prospect of becoming a Peer. However, much more importantly, he is alleged to have said that if she did not sleep with him she would never become a Peer because he would stop that happening. If that is true, it is a very serious abuse of power and it affects this House.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak as a minority in this debate. First, I am a woman; secondly, I am not a lawyer; and thirdly, I am not a friend of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Having said that, I am very friendly with him—he is a colleague and I respect him enormously for the work he has done over his very long and distinguished career. Also, I have helped and supported women and girls who have faced unwanted sexual harassment in the workplace. Over 20 years ago in my career in local government and as a trade unionist, I sat on many disciplinary hearings of harassment in the workplace at which decisions had to be taken on whether the accused or the accuser was telling the truth. It was not a court of law but an internal disciplinary hearing and decisions had to be taken.
I myself was subjected to harassment when I was younger. I did not feel that I could complain about the individual, who was much more powerful than me—I was a very junior member of staff. I certainly do not think that I would have the courage to do what Ms Sanghera has done in this instance: make a complaint about someone who is obviously well connected and powerful. When looking at balancing this debate, we need to bear in mind how we are perceived outside our bubble here. Towards the end of his contribution, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that he would be concerned if, as a result of these sorts of cases, women were reluctant to come forward. If you think about it, why would they? There is adverse publicity and stress, and the effect on their family and friends is enormous.
I am disappointed that some contributions have strayed into discussing Miss Sanghera as an individual, cherry picking from the report about what she did and did not do, her age, her conduct and what she may have achieved as a well-known woman in public life. When she came forward—I read what she said—she felt that she was a woman who for many decades had been encouraging other women to come forward, particularly from her and other minority communities. We in this Chamber express a lot of concern that these women do not have a voice. We care that in their own communities they may be repressed and not encouraged to go out into the workplace. She has done a lot of work encouraging girls and women to come forward—for example, those who might be subjected to forced marriage or FGM, or child brides. She has done a lot of work on that.
Because of what she alleges happened to her, she felt it would be hypocritical to advocate other girls coming forward if she herself could not come forward. That is a very logical explanation, and I accept that that is why she felt the need to do it after so many years, with the benefit of hindsight. She has been criticised, as have other women who have been victims of historical sexual abuse, rape or assault, for not coming forward at the time. I heard a Member of this House this morning on the radio saying that women should come forward straightaway. If they do not go straight to the police—she did not say this, but it was implied—somehow they should not be believed. That is such a dangerous thing to say. What about those who have experienced historical child abuse? How is that going to be proved? How brave must those men and women be to come forward after decades when they suffered in the past? We have to be very balanced and cautious in this debate. I am not going to stray into the legalities—I am not a lawyer—but I know about natural justice. I know what women go through and how difficult it is. I have some personal experience. My daughters have had personal experience. Most women have had personal experience of this.
Look at the report produced in the other place, in Parliament, on sexual harassment and bullying. The sheer numbers of staff being sexually harassed and bullied in the workplace by MPs was staggering. The argument could have been that maybe this is a new phenomenon. It is not, is it? The new phenomenon is that, thank God, we live in a society where women and girls can speak out. This is not acceptable behaviour. That we have not heard of it before does not excuse it. It is a good thing to shine a light on this sort of behaviour and, as lawmakers, stand up to ensure that it is unacceptable. We do not want this in a modern society. Why should women and girls be harassed sexually or made to feel uncomfortable in their workplace, and that they cannot complain because they may lose their jobs? This is totally wrong. I have been very uncomfortable. I know I am in a minority on my Benches, but I do not think I am in a minority with women outside this House. I believe that the tide has changed now, and we need to catch up with it. The fact that this is the first time these procedures were used for a case like this, and that there was never a procedure for sexual harassment before, makes the case that it was perceived that it could never happen. We know it does take place. We do not know the numbers or all the cases, but we know it happens.
I put it to those here who are better placed to put together a new set of procedures that we need procedures, if these are not fit for purpose, for this situation. I note that our procedures were never challenged before, with other Members who were judged and suspended from this House, or had sanctions against them. Why were they never challenged before if they are not fit for purpose? It seems strange that now they are being judged as not fit for purpose.
I urge that, if this motion is not supported today, we do not send out a message that women are not to be believed or that, because they delayed coming forward, somehow they—or the process we have chosen and used, the commissioner we voted for—should be criticised. We thought it was fine—why would we vote for this? With respect to many of the noble and learned Lords here, why did they never before flag up that this was not fit for purpose? Why did we not hear about that? I am sure we should have. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps we need better procedures. More cases may well come forward. I have huge respect for my noble friend Lord McNally, but I just heard that he had never heard a whisper before.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
No. You said about the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that, because he was a friend, you had never heard—
Baroness Hussein-Ece
You did.
In the #MeToo movement, it takes one brave person to come forward. I have already heard rumours of others. Other women—it is usually women—think “I can come forward too now”, because there is a precedent. It was the same with the child abuse scandals. It took decades before those who were abused terribly as children had the courage to come forward. I am sure that is the case with many women as well. I am sure there will be other women—I am not speaking here about the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It has happened with MPs. We must not judge that women who come forward years or even decades later are somehow not telling the truth. Mentioning their age is irrelevant. It could be anybody. I admire what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has done over the years; we all admire him. But I saw this written somewhere and I thought it very apt: human rights have been enshrined in laws, but we must begin at home. How do we treat people who are not powerful, who do not have powerful friends or friends sitting in your Lordships’ House who can speak and advocate on their behalf? We must begin at home and remember why human rights have been enshrined in our laws. It is to protect the little person as well.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the most severe burden that anyone has to carry is adjudicating upon the conduct of our fellow citizens. Many of us have done that as judges and even more as magistrates. It is a very heavy burden indeed, and one which, in this situation, we have to shoulder in respect of a colleague in this House. The responsibility has been put on the Committee for Privileges and Conduct to refer the result of an inquiry to the House. That is what we have done. The committee is composed of the leaders and Chief Whips of all the parties and the Convenor of the Cross Benches. There are also one or two others in it, of whom I happen to be a member. I have been a member for a long time.
I certainly find it a heavy responsibility, because two parties are involved: the complainer and the person against whom the complaint is made. When the complainer decides to come forward with a complaint, they have before them the rules that are to govern the procedure. Therefore, I do not think it is open to this House, if it is to be fair, to alter the rules as they apply to this case. We are bound to apply the rules as they were to this case. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, has pointed out, these rules, in substance, have been approved by the House for a long time. Certainly, my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf says he gave up because he thought it was not fit for purpose. I never heard that complaint and, as far as I know—I am subject to correction and, like many of my friends, I am not at all infallible—it has not been put by any Motion on the Floor of the House. That is my recollection.
The procedure has been laid down in considerable detail in the code of conduct, which says that the procedure to be used is that which is set down in the guide. Therefore, the commissioner and all the committees that dealt with this were bound by the rules that presently exist. It would be extraordinary to try to alter these rules while a case is being considered and after the complainant has put in her complaint. The commissioner is directed as to what to do if there is a conflict. She has to consider both sides and make sure that the person complained against has the opportunity to object. She put all the evidence she had before the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and he had full opportunity to comment on it.
Cross-examination has been referred to. It is, for example, an important part of our criminal procedure. But look for a moment at the opinion that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, obtained. On page 75 of the report, there is a quotation from the High Court of Australia, and it is interesting to see how it puts it—I had better put my glasses on so that I can read it properly. It states:
“Confrontation and the opportunity for cross-examination is of central significance to the common law adversarial system of trial”.
That is the adversarial system. The system applied by the rules that this House has approved for almost 10 years —it is nine years, I think—is the inquisitorial procedure. Therefore, it is left to the commissioner to assess the credibility of the people involved by conversing with them in detail, as she has done with both the complainant and the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
I have to say that I have known the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for a long time. He knows that I have very high confidence in him, for reasons that I do not need to go into. However, we now have two people before this House: the complainer, who came to the House on the basis of the current rules, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has sat under these rules for nine years without, as far as I know, bringing forward any complaint or amendment. In that situation, the Committee for Privileges is bound to consider the report of the commissioner and come to a conclusion, one way or the other, but it is not entitled to reopen the proceedings. The commissioner is given the responsibility of deciding where the truth lies.
The commissioner applied the balance of probabilities, which is required by our rules, but she said that, in the particular case she was dealing with, the consequences were serious and therefore she felt that—as the conclusion makes clear—there was cogent evidence from the complainer and her witnesses that this was proved. Therefore, she applied the balance of probabilities in the light of judgments such as that of Lord Nicholls. In that situation, I find it very difficult to see how we can modify the procedures that the complainant expected to confront when she launched her complaint.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain which rules permitted the commissioner to make submissions on the appeal, refuting the grounds of appeal, at the end of which she suggested that the appeal should be dismissed?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
She was the investigator and complaints were made about the nature of the investigation. She submitted to the Committee for Privileges a document containing that information. That was submitted to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his consideration—the committee was not going to take one side or the other. He then submitted a supplementary comment on that also. The last person we heard speak on this was the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The commissioner was not asked to speak after that. We were firmly of the opinion that the commissioner’s report had to be taken on the basis of what she said, and the committee had the duty of deciding, on the balance of probabilities, whether that was a reasonable decision in the circumstances or to reject it. We also had the knowledge that, if we rejected the commissioner’s report, we were in fact saying that the complainant’s account of the matter was a complete lie. The evidence she submitted on paper was detailed and circumstantial, and the commissioner went over it with her.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will know that I intervene with great reluctance. Is he saying that, if the feeling of the House is that, for whatever reason, the process was unfair, nevertheless we are compelled by the rules to do an injustice to an individual?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Not at all. I am saying that the process is perfectly fair. The commissioner gave the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the complainant exactly the same balance. I do not accept for a moment that this House has approved unfair rules and only discovered that today. These rules have been in position for a long time, and you have to bear in mind that the complainant made a complaint on the basis of these rules. As far as I can see, there is nothing unfair about the rules, so long as both sides get the full account of what the other side has said. In my opinion, that is natural justice: that you have the full account before you. Natural justice would not allow, for example, supplementary evidence to be taken by the commissioner without it being shown to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. As far as I know, there is no complaint to suggest that he was not shown every piece of paper that the commissioner had. He was given his opportunity to explain.
The process then requires the commissioner to make up her mind and submit her report to the Committee for Privileges. The committee’s only responsibility is to decide whether it accepts the report. As far as I can see, nothing has been suggested about the facts of the matter on which she reported which can be shown to be wrong. In the recondite speeches we have heard on the subject of procedure—
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to ask the noble and learned Lord to tell us whether the committee was obliged to hear this case, even though it occurred 11 years earlier. Was that a choice it had, or was it obliged to?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I said it was obliged to obey the rules laid down by this House for the conduct of these proceedings. It was 11 years ago, but the rules have been subject to review by the sub-committee ever since. They are still the rules, and they were the rules when the lady came along. We must give that fact a fair hearing on the side of the lady. She came to this place complaining on the basis of the procedure laid down in our rules, and these rules were completely obeyed. No one has submitted that the commissioner did not know what she was doing or had not obeyed the rules: she obeyed the rules as she had them. The idea that she could have employed someone to cross-examine the complainant does not have any support in the rules whatever. She had no authority under the rules to ask someone to cross-examine the complainant.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord if there is anything in the rules about her becoming respondent to the appeal. There is nothing in the rules.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
We accepted what she has put in. It was just an elaboration of what she had said already. As I say, we gave the noble Lord, Lord Lester, a full opportunity to comment on what she had said, and he did so. That was the last part of the proceedings.
In my view, we were as fair as we could possibly be. I take this responsibility very heavily and no one in the Privileges Committee considered this matter lightly. We considered that the matter had been given a fair hearing according to the rules—to both sides—and the commissioner decided the matter.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Perhaps I might point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that the Guide to the Code of Conduct states specifically in paragraph 143:
“A meeting will be scheduled to hear the appeal and the member will be given an opportunity to appear in person, if he or she so wishes. The Committee may also take evidence from the Commissioner”.
So that is the basis for the commissioner giving evidence. On the day, the Privileges and Conduct Committee did not hear from the commissioner but, because later appeals were put in, we ensured that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had the last word, and he was brought in for that.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, of course we cannot change our procedures and rules once a case has started, but if we discover that there has been a breach of natural justice it would be right for the committee not to impose any penalty, and thereafter we would need to look at those rules and make sure that we got them right.
Four important issues have arisen from the debate on which the House should focus, because all of us feel uncomfortable about the present state of uncertainty on these matters. The first point is that it is quite clear from this case—if it was not clear already—that conviction under this procedure has the effect of being totally destructive of both the personal and professional reputations of the accused. It is analogous in that respect to a conviction in a criminal case. It is therefore right that the burden of proof should be the one that is applied in a criminal case and not the one applied in a civil case, where simply losing a civil dispute is not at all the same thing. That change ought to be made as soon as possible.
The second point which has arisen from the debate—and which is a matter of concern to a great many of us—is the issue of cross-examination. It is inherent in these cases that there is rarely any forensic evidence and the whole case turns on statements that are inconsistent with each other and facts which are disputed between the various parties. In those circumstances, it is right and essential that we are entirely clear that there must be a way of dealing with these disputes and this uncertainty. In the history of law no one has found a better solution than cross-examination, and so it should be introduced. As has already been said, cross-examination does not necessarily mean that we should give up our inquisitorial approach. It would require the commissioner or somebody on her behalf—a counsel or, indeed, the committee itself—to undertake the cross-examinations required.
I do not know when the rules were changed but I remember, shortly after I entered this House, reading with great admiration the deadly cross-examination carried out by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of a Member of this House who had been accused of a serious offence of a different type. There is no reason why we should not have cross-examinations carried out by the committee itself in those circumstances.
There should be a way of looking through the statements—many of which may be inconsistent and not entirely credible—to get at the truth. That has not been done in a rigorous way in the present situation. I was surprised and alarmed at the casualness of the way in which the commissioner dealt with the various witnesses. Some were contacted by email, some by telephone and some were apparently uncontactable. But it is not clear why they were uncontactable or what efforts were made to contact them—and there were no transcripts of any of the conversations between the commissioner and the complainant, the commissioner and the accused or the commissioner and the various witnesses. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation.
Another thing that has not been mentioned and which emerges clearly from this case is that there are obviously great dangers and risks to justice when there is a long interval between an alleged offence being committed and the complaint about it being made. That is an undesirable situation. We all know that memories fade and erode over time and that after some years people can get muddled about conversations and events that took place. It is difficult to see through that and establish what the facts were.
Furthermore, such a situation works to the disadvantage of the accused. The accused might have the ability to produce an irrefutable alibi if he or she has the opportunity to do so within a few weeks or months of the events complained about taking place, but it would be impossible in most cases to produce that alibi if there is an interval of 10 or 12 years between the two events. This works to the disadvantage of the accused in a way that is worrying.
The committee has taken note of this danger and it has tried to produce a remedy—a rather extraordinary remedy—which, if I understand it correctly, is as follows: complaints will not be entertained more than four years after the events complained about took place, except that the commissioner may, if she wishes, override that and simply accept complaints that are older than that. The sub-committee would have the right to veto that decision by the commissioner.
This procedure is wrong in many respects. First, the commissioner should not be in the position of deciding on the rules of procedure, not on the basis of objective criteria but on the basis of her feelings about a particular case—ad hoc, ad hominem and ad feminam. That is not the way in which due process works. I am concerned about that. We should have a full statute of limitations—we have a half-statute of limitations here—and it should be quite clear that complaints that are made, let us say after four years, because that is the figure that already exists, will not be entertained on any basis.
The thing that concerns me most is that, although there are no objective criteria for deciding when you can accept a complaint after the four-year deadline, the commissioner in this case set out the reasons why she felt she should override the four-year limit which normally applies and accept the complaint, as she has done. The reasons she gave are on page 19 of the document before us. The relevant part, which is of great concern, states:
“There are exceptional circumstances that justify an investigation being conducted in accordance with paragraphs 119 and 120”.
That is the paragraph which provides for the possibility of overriding the four-year limit. It continues by referring to,
“the current concern of Parliament to deal with sexual misconduct by its members … the publicity given to endemic sexual misconduct and abuse of power in many fields of work”.
The report goes on in that respect. This is of deep concern to me because the duty of the commissioner and the committee in a case like this is a single one. It is for them to do their best to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused and to set out the reasons for coming to their conclusions so that the House and the wider world can understand them. Other extraneous considerations—public policy, public opinion, current fashion and the agitations of the press—are all completely irrelevant. They should not begin to come into any of these considerations at all—and I am very worried indeed that in this case they did.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I practised at the Bar for 11 years a long time ago, but I have no experience of criminal law and I do not claim to have any special expertise. I think that noble Lords should look at this case from the point of view which has been put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf: has the person complained about had a fair crack of the whip?
There were some cases recently where a court said that statements made by someone bringing forward the accusation of rape were completely contradictory to the accusation—not only the statements but also the behaviour of the person making the accusation were quite inconsistent with her original charge. This was clearly an instance where the cross-examination of the person making the charge was essential. Looking at it from the point of view of whether my noble friend Lord Lester had a fair crack of the whip, can anyone doubt that there should have been a cross-examination, in this case of the accuser, of her reaction to the production of the books, how much she admired him, how on another occasion she asked after his health and had sent “love and kisses”. According to one witness, she behaved in a manner that suggested great friendliness for the accused some time later.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
You are going through the case but you were not there.
Lord Taverne
It is highly appropriate. In those cases there was a complete inconsistency between the behaviour and statements after the event which conflicted with the accusation made. The convictions were quashed. Can anyone really argue that if there had been the possibility of cross-examination of the witness about the kind of examples which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, gave in his original speech—the confessions of a very close relationship with the defendant—that sufficient doubts would have been raised for the charge to be dismissed?
Baroness Meacher
I add my support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Pannick. Having spent nine years investigating allegations against police officers, including allegations of serious sexual harassment by chief constables, I am very aware that process is absolutely everything. I remember that time and again I would be completely persuaded by allegations that would appear on my desk. They were obviously true, were they not? However, further down the line, under cross-examination, those very persuasive allegations crumbled to sand.
Our process is either faulty or it is open to misinterpretation; my inclination is to think that it is open to misinterpretation. That is because cross-examination is clearly appropriate where serious allegations are being made with very serious consequences for the person complained against. I hope therefore that my noble friend Lord Pannick will test the opinion of the House. I hope too that noble Lords will support the amendment in order to make it clear that this House stands for the highest possible standards of fairness and justice.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the debate has gone on for a long time and I promise to detain the House for no longer than two minutes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Many of us do not live in London and we have to get to other parts of the United Kingdom. We are hearing the same arguments again and again. Surely it is about time that we went to the vote.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I suggest that we hear from my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lady Shackleton, and then we move on to the noble Lord, Lord McFall.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I want to draw the attention of the House to my experiences as a director of a major self-regulatory authority, the Securities and Futures Authority, which used to regulate a major part of the financial community of the City of London. When you are investigating things like the collapse of Barings Bank, issues of money and reputation rank very high indeed. There are some lessons which can be read across to the difficult, problematic and painful case that we are discussing today.
I should make it clear that I am not a lawyer and I do not know the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, although obviously I have seen him in action in your Lordships’ House. I know of his reputation both here and in the wider judicial field. I have played no part in any of the committees that have looked into this case. I want to focus on the process and, following up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, draw on the experience of the Securities and Futures Authority when it was trying to regulate the City of London. Before the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was passed and we got the statutory framework that we now have, there was a self-regulatory framework in which practitioners made up the governing body. Given that, we felt particular stresses and strains, some of which we are seeing reflected in the contributions to this debate in your Lordships’ House.
As a body, we always struggled with the accusation that we were too close to the people we regulated. As newspapers would put it very disobligingly, we let our friends off over lunch. To fend off those accusations, we ensured that independent individuals with no links to the financial services community formed part of our panels and our body. One of them was the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, a distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House on the Benches opposite, but he is not in his place today.
The issue that was always put to us by our legal advisers was that in a disciplinary case, we could never change the rules. The rules were the rules. They might have needed updating and they might even have been inadequate, but they could not and must not be changed in midstream because of course the authority, which made its own rules, would inevitably suffer a stupendous loss of public confidence if an “unpopular” decision was being reached and the rules were subsequently changed, perhaps to achieve a different result.
My question for the noble Lord, Lord McFall, when he comes to wind up the debate, is this. Can he assure the House that the rules now in play were followed to the letter and that no potential avenue which might have advantaged the case for the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was denied to him? If he can give that undertaking, I will have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that while I understand his case for change and I have read his article in the Times, and I acknowledge how powerfully he and others have argued their case in this debate, that surely must be a discussion for another day. If we were to accept the amendment and therefore put aside our rules in this case, it is all too easy to see the accusation that we, too, are letting off our friends over lunch.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
To accommodate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I shall be very brief indeed. I have read the report from beginning to end and I am extremely uneasy about convicting a fellow Peer for misconduct with that standard of investigation.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
I am not against women coming forward—indeed, I encourage it—but to be balanced, the accused person must be given the right to answer fairly and be investigated. That is justice. I fear that if we do not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be expelled from this House without having had the opportunity to have the accuser’s evidence forensically tested. In the practice in which I operate, which is not a criminal practice, written statements are put in the bin unless the person who wrote them goes in the witness box to stand for them and be cross-examined on them. This is a very serious allegation. We should rethink whether we are proud of the way it has been handled and whether it really is justice.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their 18 contributions. Some of them made points that we consider absolutely valid; I think the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made that very point.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts made the point that rules are rules. I can say definitively that the rules are the rules and that we and the commissioner adhere to them. Noble Lords will see that the first page of our code of conduct states:
“The following Code of Conduct for members of the House of Lords was adopted by resolution on 30 November 2009 and amended on 30 March 2010, 12 June 2014, 25 February 2016, 9 February 2017 and 3 April 2017”.
No one who suggested that the rules are flawed came here with any suggestions to change them. We in the sub-committee and the committee observed the rules faithfully.
A point was made about the commissioner freelancing. The commissioner went to the sub-committee and specifically asked to investigate this case. That sub-committee is chaired by an eminent judge, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was on that committee. Permission was given to the commissioner, so she followed every rule of this House.
Lord Warner
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. Can he say how many cases of historical sexual abuse and harassment have been considered under these rules since they were formed?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I have been the chairman for two years and this is the first case I have had; I undertake faithfully to write my noble friend on that question. That is not a problem.
My noble friend Lady Shackleton and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made a point about testing the evidence. The commissioner covered that point in the committee’s report, saying:
“I am not entirely sure what Lord Lester means by cross-examination … but if he means testing the evidence where there is a challenge or a good reason to do so, then the report shows that I did this, throughout the process, and where I did not, I gave my reasons”.
She refers to paragraphs 156 and 93 to 152 of her report. The evidence was tested very carefully.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that the rules are not fit for purpose. Following his chairmanship, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, looked at that point in the leader’s report and used the experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, so that they could take account of the problems. They did that by establishing an independent commissioner.
Other points have been made about the process being reviewed next week when the committee will meet, following the Cox report in the House of Commons. We will look at bullying and harassment. We want to ensure that the system is more accessible to complainants but there is no current suggestion to adopt a procedure involving cross-examination. If any Member wishes to put that to the committee for consideration, we are here to listen to all the evidence.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in what sense is cross-examination not part of an inquisitorial system? It is perfectly possible under such a system. We are looking at precedents in the United States where a lot of students are being accused of sexual misconduct in universities and university tribunals have been taken to court for their procedures. It is quite clear that the American courts expect an inquisitorial procedure under which the fact-finder questions the evidence.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
We could be dancing on a pinhead here in that sense. The main issue, as outlined, is the testing of evidence. I take comfort from the fact that the sub-committee included eminent legal people such as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Irvine of Lairg. They are as distinguished as they come. I take great comfort from the fact that of the 14 members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee last week, both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, gave evidence. If I were looking for legal representatives, those four would always be in my first team; they would never be on the subs bench. I have every confidence in them.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that under cross-examination, it may have been established that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was innocent?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I listened to the noble and learned Lords on that issue. They were satisfied that the evidence was tested thoroughly, which is as good as anything. I took comfort from what they said. Having listened to the points that have been made, I hope that Members will uphold the internal disciplinary procedures relating to the code agreed by this House way back in 2009. Those processes have been in place for many years; we have used them many times for the investigation of allegations. The Members who spoke in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have not previously criticised or sought to change those processes even though they were used to investigate other serious allegations that led to suspensions for four Members in 2009, as I mentioned in my opening speech. As other members of the committee have said, we cannot criticise the independent commissioner for her processes.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, I understand that if the verdict is passed that the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, should go through, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, could not appeal to the UK courts. Could he appeal to the Strasbourg court instead or would he be denied justice everywhere?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I am being told that I could give an answer but I am advised that it is not a matter for me to refer to. In his comments on 20 May 2009, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, took the issue of the European courts into consideration in looking at the case and appeals of the four Members accused of taking money from the Sunday Times. It is good to look at that.
As I mentioned, other committee members said that we cannot criticise the independent commissioner. She followed the procedures set down by this House and kept under review by the committees of this House, not least the sub-committees. I invite the House to reflect on why we have an independent commissioner. We have one to build public trust in the House as an institution and because one of the principles of natural justice is having an impartial decision-maker. The House deliberately delegated active investigation and assessment to an independent commissioner; it would be wholly wrong for the House to seek now to substitute the commissioner’s conclusions with its own.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, is that not the whole purpose of this debate? We are here to reach a judgment on the commissioner’s report.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
We are here to listen to Members’ views, which I said I would take in. The sub-committee made its declaration. By the way, we used our judgment as a committee, because the sub-committee recommended expelling the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We modified that and made it a suspension. Those judgments were made by the sub-committee and the Privileges and Conduct Committee. We are here to listen to points of view. I shall take forward in the committee next week the comments that have been made today so that we can add to and refine our processes. That is the essence of this.
My final remark is that we must not forget the complainant in all this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, said. This is a woman who reported a series of highly distressing events that have gone largely unmentioned, other than by the noble Baroness, today. She has been criticised in some parts of the media.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
Some of us have been trying to get in for two and a half hours to support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, but, with due respect to some noble Lords, they go on so long that it can be impossible to get in.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord. I do not know whether I agree enthusiastically with him, but I shall nod to that comment. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, were highly relevant in that regard. The complainant has been criticised in some parts of the media for not formally reporting what happened at the time. She did not report what happened in 2007 to this House, but she told six people of considerable standing. We should remember that, at that time, she would have had to report the incident directly to Members of this House. We had no independent commissioner or other mechanism for reporting at that time. I should also point out that it was not the commissioner who unilaterally decided that it was appropriate to investigate; she sought the permission of the sub-committee, which unanimously decided that the case should be investigated fully under our current procedures. With that, I invite the House to approve the Motion in my name and to agree to the report of the Privileges and Conduct Committee. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pannick
I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker. It is one of my remaining ambitions in life to get into his first 11 of lawyers.
I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate. It is striking that no one who has done so has disputed that in all other regulatory, disciplinary or employment areas in this country—in the City as well—if you are accused of a serious disciplinary offence that turns on credibility and have your reputation destroyed, you are entitled to cross-examine, or have cross-examination conducted of, the person who accuses you. It is not a question of “special pleading”—the noble Lord, Lord Warner, used that phrase—for Members of this House; I am asking for the protection accorded to everyone outside this House who faces accusations of similar conduct. It is simply unacceptable for us to apply lower standards.
Perhaps I may briefly respond to the main arguments that I understand to have been advanced. The first is that these are our rules; we are stuck with them. I have to tell noble Lords that if I were appearing in a judicial review for any public body accused of adopting an unfair procedure and I were to say to the court, “Well, those are the rules”, the judge would not for a moment tolerate such an argument. The court would say, “This is not fair”, and it would set aside the decision. In any event, the code, which is the governing instrument, at paragraph 21 requires compliance with,
“the principles of natural justice and fairness”.
There is nothing in the rules which prevents the commissioner in the exercise of her discretion allowing cross-examination in an appropriate case.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Lord is talking about a judge applying the law made a by third party. The difference here is that we are talking about us applying rules that we have made ourselves. It is a distinctly different matter. A judge is applying the law of the land; we are applying rules that we have created ourselves.
Lord Pannick
We are the High Court of Parliament. One cannot go to court to challenge the fairness of this procedure. This House is obliged to ask whether what has been done in this case is fair. The argument seems to be, “Well, the current rules might be unfair. We don’t accept that they are, but in the future we’ll consider doing something about them”. This is no comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and it should be no comfort to your Lordships in considering this case. He is entitled to a fair procedure.
The point was then made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that these are inquisitorial, and not adversarial, proceedings, but we cannot inquire into a matter of this sort and reach a fair conclusion without a process of cross-examination for all the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, eloquently explained.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Would the noble Lord not be content with the inquisitor asking the questions, as she said she did?
Lord Pannick
She did not conduct a cross-examination, and it is very difficult for the person making the decision to enter into the arena to do so. The experience of all distinguished inquiry chairmen, of whom there are many in the House—particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—is that when they are making a judgment in an inquisitorial inquiry on a question of fact which depends on credibility, they either allow the parties to cross-examine or they appoint counsel to the inquiry to conduct that process, which would also be entirely acceptable.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Is the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggesting that this lady, appointed by the House as a commissioner, did not have the necessary skills to probe the evidence on both sides? According to her, that is what she did and she had to form a view about it which she presented to the committee. I have no reason to suppose that she did not reach the correct conclusion.
Lord Pannick
I have no quarrel with the good faith of the commissioner. She did not conduct a cross-examination; she did not appoint someone to do it; nor did she allow the noble Lord, Lord Lester, through his counsel or his solicitor to do so. If the noble and learned Lord were to look in the Times today and see the letter from the solicitor to Ms Sanghera, he would see that he does not suggest that a cross-examination was carried out; his argument is that it was not necessary and fairness did not require it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, expressed concern about how we are perceived outside this House and said that we must be careful not to deter complaints. I do not accept that for us to follow a fair procedure that applies in all other contexts would either deter genuine complainants or damage our public reputation. On the contrary, we would be recognising and applying standards of fairness that are universally recognised in all other contexts.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
Of course I am concerned about that. The noble Lord seems to suggest that the procedures that we have adopted are not fit for purpose, but he has not said why his friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, went along with it. If it was so unfair, as someone as eminent as him would know, why on earth did he go along with that procedure and why was nothing said before?
Lord Pannick
I am sorry to say to the noble Baroness that that really is a very bad point. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, faces a disciplinary inquiry by this House: he either plays no part in it or he does the best he can. It really is no answer to the complaint that the commissioner applied an unfair procedure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, did the best he could in order to satisfy the commissioner that the allegations were unfounded.
I have had the privilege of being a Member of this House for 10 years and I have always regarded the House as a very fair-minded place. We listen to the arguments and try to take a fair decision. We do not proceed, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, on the basis that we have to get behind the commissioner, the sub-committee and the Committee for Privileges, for all of whom, on a personal level, I have a very high regard. The question is whether the procedure applied to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, accorded with paragraph 21: was it in accordance with fairness and natural justice? I am very disappointed that the Senior Deputy Speaker did not think, in light of this debate, that the appropriate response would be to say to the House that he would withdraw his Motion and take it back to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct for further consideration. He has not adopted that approach. As your Lordships know, very strong feelings are felt on both sides of this debate, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Arrangement of Business
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, we now move on to debates. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that we have decided that the last debate tabled for today, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will be postponed to a more suitable occasion so that there is time to have proper debate on the other subjects available to the House.
Veterans Strategy
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s Veterans Strategy.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great honour to initiate a debate, especially when it turns out to be so timely, with yesterday’s publication of the Government’s Strategy for Our Veterans and the centenary of the end of the First World War.
In the UK, for a very long time we have had a proud tradition of recognising the unique contribution made to national life by our military veterans. Members of the Armed Forces are almost unique in that they are willing to undertake a mission when they cannot expect all their comrades to come home, or at least not without some life-changing injuries. But we should also remember that it is all too easy to fall into the trap of concentrating on combat operations while overlooking casualties incurred during exercises or training, which nevertheless provide and demonstrate military capability and thus deter and prevent conflict from taking place.
I must declare an interest because, in my own humble way, I am a veteran. There have been some very minor negative effects, but overall my service as a volunteer has been hugely beneficial to me, both for my career and for my standing in society. Exactly the same would apply to the clear majority of veterans. They will have had a great career in the regular Armed Forces, or possibly in the reserves, and then transitioned smoothly into civilian life without difficulty and having taken full and proper advantages of the resettlement facilities on offer. Sadly, for some their career in the forces might not have been so successful. They might have had to leave at a time not of their own choosing; transition might have been difficult; or perhaps problems arose later in civilian life. Any strategy needs to meet the needs of the majority while ensuring that no one is left behind or falls through the cracks in the floorboards. I believe that the strategy goes a long way to achieving this.
The strategy starts with the vision and principles, which I will not rehearse. There are then five cross-cutting factors and six key themes. The first cross-cutting factor is collaboration to provide coherent support. The strategy recognises that the UK enjoys a strong and vibrant Armed Forces charitable sector. I will not weary your Lordships with describing its role, as it is well understood, but sometimes I worry that small charities are being set up to meet a relatively discrete perceived need by a well-meaning team. However, I wonder whether the funding, horsepower and necessary governance might be better used as part of a larger and more efficiently resourced charity. Furthermore, the strategy recognises that there is an inconvenience to veterans of having to repeat their circumstances to a variety of organisations. That is not to say that big charities are problem free, so does my noble friend the Minister have any concerns about the governance of any of the big service charities? If he does, what, if anything, can he do about it?
Closely allied to collaboration between organisations is the cross-cutting factor of co-ordination of veterans’ services. SSAFA has reported to me that, in the past, a veteran might have one difficulty where help was required. Nowadays, that association finds that if something goes wrong with a veteran, it goes spectacularly wrong with help required from several agencies. This is why co-ordination was so important. What I and many others do not fully understand is which part of the Government and which Minister would step in if and when there was a co-ordination problem with other government departments. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain how this will work.
One of the most important cross-cutting factors is data on the veteran community. Given that the clear majority successfully transition from service to civilian life within existing resources, it is clearly vital that we can identify those with problems. For instance, an obvious indicator available to government would be employers’ national insurance contributions because if they cease for a particular veteran before the normal retirement age, this may indicate that something is amiss. It could be a precursor for even more serious problems, such as marriage breakdown and homelessness. My fear is that rules about data transfer between government departments may make it so hard to utilise available data that we simply do not do so.
Another controversy is on the statistics. Do we have enough, are we measuring the correct issues and are the questions the right ones? I am hoping that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, will say something about the controversial issue of the suicide rate among veterans. Surely whether a suicide victim has a service background should be determined in every inquest and, if positive, reported for data capture.
I think we need to be careful about what we ask and how we interpret the answer. For instance, if I was asked whether I had occasional unpleasant dreams that I could honestly attribute to my military service, the answer would be yes. But the detail of my recurring dream is that I am in uniformed service, the sleeping area is wet and uncomfortable and the food is insufficient or horrible—and your Lordships can imagine what the toilet facilities are like. However, importantly I never dream about death, destruction or anyone being unpleasant to me. Sadly, that is not the case with many veterans who have been engaged in combat. My understanding is that, as one gets older, the ability of the mind to supress and forget unpleasant events gets weaker. SSAFA has told me that it is very concerned that Falkland veterans are starting to present in increasing numbers. Sadly, we can expect even worse problems arising from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq but a long time into the future.
I think another issue with statistics is that it is relatively easy to measure negative outcomes, so we think we know the percentage of the prison population and rough sleepers who have a service background. What is very hard to measure is the number of veterans who have experienced a poor start to life with all the classic negative indicators but nevertheless have a great career in the Armed Forces and then successfully transition to civilian life.
I will be very surprised if some noble Lords do not cover mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder—PTSD. I do not profess to be an expert, but I suspect that three pressures are at play. First, as a society we are much more willing to discuss and present with mental health issues, which is positive. This, of course, applies equally to serving personnel and veterans as well as civilians. Secondly, since we want to offer a career in the Armed Forces to anyone who is fit enough, the start standard for the infantry in particular is not very high. It is therefore not surprising that many recruits have had a very poor start to life. The detailed report of Nicholas Blake QC into the deaths at Deepcut barracks covers this point in some detail and is worth reading. To make matters worse, it is obvious that on operations the infantry will, on average, experience more traumatic incidents than the more technical trades. Thirdly, as I am sure the Minister will agree, we do not really have enough mental health capacity in the NHS to deal with the ordinary civilian population let alone with service-attributable problems.
The last two cross-cutting factors are public perception and understanding and the recognition of veterans. They are different, but closely related. I can do no better than quote directly from the strategy:
“In recent years, a number of studies have identified that public perceptions of Veterans do not always reflect the reality. Many people believe that while military service develops positive attributes … there are also incorrect perceptions that Veterans are inherently likely to be institutionalised, psychological impaired, and less able to build relationships outside the Armed Forces.”
These misconceptions have two very important negative effects. First, they make it very much harder for veterans to secure civilian employment. The SSAFA report The Nation’s Duty indicates that many veterans seeking employment find it better not to say that they have a service background. The second adverse effect is that the gatekeepers of those who might consider a career in the Armed Forces may well advise against joining up.
Turning to recognition, veterans certainly do not want pity, but they want to feel that their service is valued and recognised. Your Lordships will appreciate the dangers in favouring one group in society over another, and thus caution is required in this area. The veterans ID card is a welcome development. I certainly found my Army MoD Form 90 ID card was a very useful and reliable means of ID. While any veterans ID card should not be confusable with a MoD Form 90, it would be good if it was a technically reliable and acceptable form of ID that adds value, not just financial value.
Sadly, I cannot cover the key themes of the strategy in detail apart from veterans and the law. I am currently taking a very close look at our prison system. We all know that a small minority of veterans end up in prison. Members of this group are often among the most vulnerable of veterans with complex needs. However, mentoring programmes have been shown to be very effective.
The other aspect of veterans and the law is not so palatable and it concerns historic inquiries. During the recent Question for Short Debate asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, I made a forceful intervention and I see no need to repeat it. However, I feel very strongly about the matter and gently remind the Minister that at some point the Armed Forces Act will have to be renewed by means of primary legislation.
I am grateful for the briefings that I have received from NGOs. I hope that other noble Lords will be able to fill the rather large voids that I have left. We appreciate and recognise our veterans community, and we will remember them. I beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in this debate. I will take up where my noble friend Lord Attlee left off about the pursuit of former servicemen who may have committed, or are alleged to have committed, some crimes in the past. The veterans strategy does not address that. It should be in the veterans strategy because, frankly, it is a disgrace that historic allegations which have been investigated in the past are now being dragged out. This is what I intend to look at. I intend to look briefly at Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan.
I should say that I served in Northern Ireland, where I did a couple of long tours. I never did anything very exciting, although many of my friends did, and I suspect that many of them now fear being reinvestigated. I also served in the first Gulf War, and then worked in the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office in the coalition Government. I shall look at government responsibility, parliamentary responsibility, the issue of equivalence, and the passage of time.
Responsibility for sending young men, and now, indeed, young women, to war rests with the Government —the state, if you like—and this Parliament, so we are all to a certain extent responsible. I was involved in voting occasionally on the Iraq war and on the war in Afghanistan. Parliament sends young men to defend British interests as we perceive them to be abroad or, indeed, in Northern Ireland. Those young men and women should expect our support. Who do we send? I will speak from my experience, which is that we send young, scared soldiers who may not have been out of this country before—who may not have been out of England before when they are sent to Northern Ireland—with lethal weapons to places where others are trying to kill them. They are not overpaid lawyers like those who now pursue them around the courts, and they are not policemen. They are not trained as policemen, and they do not necessarily understand all the niceties of the law.
That brings me on to equivalence. These young men—I speak particularly about Northern Ireland—faced terrorists who were trying to kill them. On the one hand, you had public servants doing their duty as requested by Parliament and the Government and trying to do the right thing, and on the other hand, you had terrorists in Northern Ireland acting illegally against our state. There is no equivalence, and the idea that equivalence should be considered is quite wrong.
In Northern Ireland I saw young, scared, jumpy men being shot at and trying to do the right thing. They did not always get it right. Did they behave badly or illegally? Well, sometimes people did. I shall name three cases, the first from Northern Ireland: the Fermanagh pitchfork murders, which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, may know about, where people behaved atrociously and murdered a couple of farmers with pitchforks. I am glad to say that those people who murdered, who obviously behaved very illegally, finally went to jail for life. Secondly, the case of Baha Musa in Iraq is well known. The soldiers there behaved atrociously, and indeed several of them went to detention and jail. The third is the very sad case in Afghanistan of Sergeant Blackman, who actually said, and was recorded saying, “This is against the Geneva convention”. There was a big campaign about it. The truth is that he broke the Geneva convention and knew he was doing so, and he went to jail. It seems to me that that is the right way for these things to be handled.
However, do people make mistakes? If you send these young men with rifles on to the streets of wherever it may be, Northern Ireland or Basra, they will make mistakes. They are scared for their lives. I will bring up one case that is currently in front of the courts. Dennis Hutchings is alleged to have shot a young man called John Pat Cunningham in 1974. The man he shot, Cunningham, was alleged to have had a mental age of six or seven; he was challenged on several occasions and ran, and they shot him. Obviously that was a mistake. They did not intend to kill this young man with a mental age of seven. In fact, I believe I may have been the Minister who apologised to the family from the Ministry of Defence for this mistake—for it was a mistake. However, to return to equivalence, there is no equivalence between public servants who make mistakes and terrorists who murder civilians. In Northern Ireland, 9/10ths of murders took place because of terrorists and 1/10th of the deaths took place because of security force work.
On the question of the passage of time—I refer again to Northern Ireland, which perhaps I know most about—there is currently a coroner’s inquest into the Ballymurphy killings, which is referred to by many as the Ballymurphy massacre, of August 1971. As it happens, I know Ballymurphy quite well, having walked round and round it for four months. In 1971 I was at university. To me, the General Strike and Hitler’s putsch in Munich were old history. That is what we are doing now; we are looking down back at 1971 and saying, “What happened then?” Guess what: half the people who were there are dead, particularly the defence witnesses. The Army of course has records but there are no records of whatever happens from the other side. In my own view—I am lucky to be covered by privilege in Parliament—I suspect that the soldiers in Ballymurphy were not fully in control, and I suspect some of the people killed there should most certainly not have been shot, in the same way that those of us who remember the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday knew in 1972 that the Parachute Regiment in Londonderry at the time was actually not properly under control. However, what are we to do about this? My own preference on these things is for a statute of limitations, but I am not going to put forward too many views because I want the Minister to think about it.
I turn to the current situation and where things are going at the moment. Relatively recently, in Iraq and indeed in Afghanistan, the British Government were supporting—if one can believe it—the investigations of money-chasing lawyers running around these fields. Phil Shiner, who has now been struck off the solicitors register, and his own company, Public Interest Lawyers, got over £2 million of legal fees paid by the British taxpayer, by us. There is Leigh Day, where the lead solicitor was in fact found to have behaved badly but is now back on the register because he appealed successfully so I will not deal with that. Other people have also been chasing around, trying to find young people in Iraq and Afghanistan who know that compensation is on offer if they can make a case stick against the British Army. We are talking about fighting a war in these places. We are allowing our decency and our liberal democracy to be used against us. Of course soldiers should not misbehave, but at the same time they should not be pursued.
I return to the subject of Northern Ireland. I have talked about the pursuit of public servants. If we look back to 1973, the dogs on the streets will tell you that Gerry Adams, who has always denied being a member of the IRA, was in charge of the IRA in west Belfast. He was arrested about five years ago over the murder of Jean McConville. That is a very tragic story—if noble Lords want to know about it I can tell them, but I do not have time now—of a Protestant woman, the widow of a Catholic in the Divis flats, who tried to help a dying soldier. She was taken away, in front of her 10 children, and murdered, but Gerry Adams will not be prosecuted. We have the case of John Downie, who was given a letter by the Blair Government saying that he would not be prosecuted. Apparently he has now been arrested and charged in the Republic with the murder of two other people. By the way, I knew one of the people in the Hyde Park bombing; Denis Daly was murdered in 1982. However, Downie got off, whereas soldiers are still being pursued for allegations of crimes that took place further away.
I will raise one case from Iraq that I was tangentially involved in. The case of Trooper Williams reflects incredibly badly on the Army establishment, the Ministry of Defence and indeed our society. Trooper Williams, aged 18, discovered along with a patrol a barrow-load of mortar bombs being pushed through, I believe, Basra. They did not shoot; they chased the man pushing that barrow-load of mortar bombs—I think it is reasonable to say that he was going about nefarious activities—into a compound where he got into a struggle with another soldier, and Williams, aged 18, shot the man. He was taken before his commanding officer, the case was considered and, on legal advice, dismissed by the commanding officer. I quote from the letter which I have from the adjutant-general at the time, which said, “We must reopen this case because it would become a cause célèbre for single-issue pressure groups”.
I think that the British Army and the Government should be supporting their own people as far as they might, not looking out for single-issue pressure groups. As it happens, this case, for which Williams spent a year in open arrest, in custody, before going to the High Court, was dismissed by the judge on the first day.
I say to my noble friend, knowing that he knows that a lot of people will agree with me, that the situation is a mess. The Government and Parliament, which send young men and women to war, need to support their public servants, so we need to sort out the situation. Of course those who commit crimes should be punished, but we should not allow this unreasonable pursuit that has taken place 47 years later. That should be in the veterans strategy.
Lord Walker of Aldringham (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my charities as listed in the register of interests, and congratulate the noble Earl on setting this debate in motion at a time when we have been focusing on the Armistice and remembering those who in the last two great wars gave their lives for our freedom. Of course, the numbers—about 2.5 million today—are rather different: far smaller than those of the two wars. It is very important in talking about our veterans to get the numbers in clear perspective. I also welcome the Government’s Strategy for Our Veterans and its associated consultation document.
The issues surrounding our veterans are far from straightforward. They range across a spectrum that includes mental health problems, including depression, suicide, poverty, debt, unemployment, relationship breakdown, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, offending, violence and homelessness. Overwhelmingly, our observations and research show that most veterans in the United Kingdom are fine—but in the media, particularly, the practice has developed of portraying veterans as a homogenous damaged group. It is almost as if everyone who has served has been damaged in some way. This leads to a widespread public perception that is both wrong and harmful. It is important that we in this House do not add flames to this non-existent bonfire.
It is also somewhat bizarre that many people think that nothing is done for veterans. We have a good NHS service, and some fantastic charities support our veterans. Sometimes they fail, but, overall, if a veteran is in some sort of social crisis, he or she will get the help they need. Clearly, if veterans are to be helped, as we have heard, data on them needs to be robust. Here, I commend the Defence Committee’s recent report, which recommended that the MoD, with the appropriate departments of the four nations, works with the charity sector to agree a shared set of methodologies for collecting and analysing data. The strategy has recognised that need, so I hope that it will happen soon.
The two areas which seem to receive most attention in the public debate are homelessness and mental health. The evidence we have suggests that homelessness affects a considerable number after they leave the forces, especially younger people and the so-called early service leavers. The figure suggested is 3%, which means that each year more than 1,000 people require urgent support to find accommodation. Others experience crises in their lives which require action to prevent homelessness later in their lives.
There is still no mechanism to identify those transitioning from the Armed Forces and at risk of homelessness, or the ability to support them effectively. The Joint Service Housing Advice Office is understaffed and provides only a template briefing and no bespoke advice. The Career Transition Partnership works well for most, and best for those who have served longest, but there is no equivalent resource to support the minority of serving personnel who leave with no clear pathway to housing.
Once a veteran becomes homeless, there is little knowledge in the civilian world that there is an enhanced offer for veterans. Local authorities and homeless charities still do not “think veterans”. That is why many veterans become homeless every year and are not getting help quickly enough—although it is also worth pointing out that just over 3% of rough sleepers are veterans, whereas about 7% of the population qualify as veterans, so they remain underrepresented overall.
Despite apparently being a priority group, there is almost no statutory revenue funding for homeless veterans from local or central government. Veterans are the only supported housing sector in the UK where the majority of support costs are paid by charities, whom have to fundraise to get the money. This is unsustainable and almost unheard of anywhere else in the wider homelessness sector.
Three significant actions could improve the situation, and I should be grateful if the Minister would take these back to the MoD. First, the transition process should be altered to try to prevent any serving personnel becoming homeless after service. Every leaver, including those who leave during basic training, early service leavers, longer-serving leavers or those discharged from a military corrective training centre, should be asked about their housing options after leaving. Those identified as at risk should be given the best advice to a pathway away from homelessness.
Secondly, local authorities and other agencies in the civilian housing sphere should establish whether a person seeking housing support is a veteran, and then ensure that the veteran has a clear pathway to housing. This would be very much in line with the intent of the covenant. Thirdly, supported housing for veterans should be put on a sustainable financial basis once and for all, preferably on a national basis. A recent piece of research conducted by York University, with a number of charities, concluded that if these three changes were made it would be possible to reduce the incidence of homelessness among veterans to close to zero.
With regard to the mental health of the Armed Forces, the Defence Committee found that is very difficult to prove whether the mental health conditions that some personnel develop are caused by their military service. Non-military factors or underlying mental health conditions exacerbated by military service could all contribute to an individual’s mental health. Further, military service could have a positive effect on an individual’s mental health, although for some this positive effect merely serves to delay the onset of mental health issues when they depart the service.
On the other hand, probable PTSD is a condition, as we have already heard, that affects the Armed Forces in particular, largely because of the intense, violent and traumatic nature of warlike operations and other things that the Armed Forces get up to. At first sight, the numbers seem quite small, at between 3% and 7%,—but the true figures are quite difficult to establish. Alcohol misuse and poverty are far more prevalent, both of which have mental health implications as well as all the other social issues that I mentioned earlier. It goes to show what a complex area veterans’ mental health is.
If the Government’s strategy is serious about helping to build on the Armed Forces covenant, to show that its commitment to our brave men and women lasts long after they have left service, it needs to do more. In my view, it should establish a department of veterans’ affairs so that there is one organisation with clear ownership of our veterans and their future. It should follow the Canadian example of establishing a veterans’ ombudsman and draw up a charter of rights for veterans which would define what their entitlement was in the National Health Service and other relevant areas of our society. Veterans should not have to beg or argue for support in the 21st century; nor should they end up as objects of pity.
Realistically, however, I cannot see such a radical change being introduced. So we are left with the Armed Forces covenant—that promise from the nation that those who serve, or have served, and their families will be treated fairly. It establishes veterans as a very special group. Wonderfully well-intentioned though it is, and even though local authorities and many others have signed up to it, there is no standardisation, no clarity about entitlement and no monitoring. The strategy and the covenant will need more teeth if they are to deliver for our veterans. I very much hope that this new strategy, improved by the outcomes of the consultation document, will provide those teeth.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I declare two interests, first as president of the Sussex branch of SSAFA and, secondly, as president of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain. I am particularly proud to be associated with war widows—a gallant group of women who have suffered greatly over the years and whom I frankly regard as a form of veteran. It is their position on which I want to speak in the debate this evening.
I have heard anecdotally over the years some pretty heart-rending stories from war widows of their difficulties, loneliness and all the kinds of problems that are associated when their lives are suddenly turned upside down by the death of their husband. But recently the War Widows’ Association has engaged on an excellent project to bring together war widows’ stories, with the aid of academics, who have allowed the ladies to tell their story in their own way. This has now been brought together in a marvellous book, War Widows’ Stories. It provides a wonderful fund of knowledge and information which should be of great value to historians of the future and, indeed, to those who are looking at the situation now. It brings home the fact that so often the war widows’ families are largely sidelined in the history of war—collateral damage, shall we call them?
It is very important that we should have a far greater understanding of the role that they have played and do play in all the conflicts of this century and the centuries before. I believe that one of the Army museums—there may be more than one—has actually taken upon itself the idea of showing the contribution of war widows, and I very much hope that major institutions such as the Imperial War Museum will think that this is a very worthwhile project to be developed. Perhaps I could encourage my noble friend the Minister to take a look at the work that has been done and to talk to the trustees of the museum to see whether this could be introduced in a much more forward way.
I turn to another issue of great concern. One of the issues which brought the War Widows’ Association into being was the fact that the miserable war pension was taxed by the Inland Revenue. That was what caused the ladies to come together to fight for what they saw as their rights. It took time, but they got it. However, for many years after that, if they cohabited or remarried, they lost their war pension. After some years, this was put right, from 1 April 2015, but it created another anomaly. Those who were affected before 1 April still had that cut-off. The War Widows’ Association is working on this now. Again, I hope I can enlist the aid and encouragement of my noble friend. I suspect that the Ministry of Defence is more sympathetic than the Treasury, which is the department that has to be persuaded. Getting money out of the Treasury is rather like getting blood out of a stone, but I ask my noble friend to try very hard on this subject.
We do not think there are many—possibly 300—and, of course, they diminish. The longer we leave this, the more they will die and the smaller the problem will become. However, it affects women whose husbands were killed in the first Gulf war, the Falklands War and in Northern Ireland, about which other Members have spoken today. I will quote one lady whose husband was killed in South Armagh in 1973. She said:
“Life was lonely as a young woman with a baby and over time I missed my son having a father and the friendship of a husband. After years alone, I was blessed with a second chance of happiness, but felt sad my pension would be withdrawn on remarriage. I felt this action demeaned John’s sacrifice”.
I fully agree with her, because it is also important to realise that legally the pension is, in fact, compensation for a life lost, and therefore should not be affected by the benefits system. I want to reiterate that—it is extremely important that it is regarded as, and is, compensation, not a normal benefit.
The military covenant has also been mentioned this evening. I will quote again so that I get it right:
“Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve, those who have served in the past and their families”—
my emphasis—
“should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most such as the injured and the bereaved”.
Who else are the bereaved but the war widows and their immediate family?
I hope that those wonderful words are carried out, because otherwise they are simply words on paper and worth nothing whatever. So I urge my noble friend to look at the possibility of war widows’ stories being celebrated or commemorated far more widely than they are now; to make absolutely certain that those widows are not left behind by this failure to allow them to keep their pensions on remarriage; and perhaps to rename the war widows’ pension as compensation, which is what it legally and truly is. I look to my noble friend to help in all these matters.
Lord Burnett (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and to be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, because they are both loyal and compelling supporters of the Armed Forces and the three of us had the privilege of representing Devonshire constituencies in the other place.
I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on securing this debate. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests and to the fact that I had the honour to serve in the Royal Marines.
The Afghanistan conflict was as hard and perilous as any that the British Armed Forces have faced since the Korean War in the early 1950s. Our Armed Forces exceeded the high expectations that we always have of them. They were extremely patient, brave and restrained. They showed great stamina and fortitude and the whole country was really proud of them and their achievements. However, those achievements came at a terrible cost, with service men and women killed in action, wounded, or seriously wounded. The Royal Marines, though only about 3.5% of the Armed Forces, accounted for 13% of those killed in action and 16% of those seriously wounded. Over 30% of the decorations for gallantry in Afghanistan were awarded to the Royal Marines or former Royal Marines serving as badged men in UK Special Forces.
I am extremely grateful to the chief executive of the Royal Marines Charity, the superb Mr Jonathan Ball, for his assisting me ahead of this debate and for the information he provided me with. The points I shall make are of course relevant to all branches of the Armed Forces, which have also suffered similar, terrible casualties. I wish also to pay tribute to the doctors and all the medical staff in Afghanistan, unsung heroes who saved many lives and literally brought some men back from the dead; and to the helicopter crews who time and again put their lives in peril, especially when called upon to evacuate casualties. Many owe their lives to them. One dreadful consequence of this war has been the terrible price that our service men and women have had to pay in death, wounds and injury. As a country, we owe so much to them. Only the best is adequate for them.
I shall set out the deficiencies of which I am aware. I know that the Secretary of State, Mr Gavin Williamson, and his two Ministers of State, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and Mr Mark Lancaster, give the highest priority to these matters. First is the provision for transfemoral—that is, above the knee—amputees. In 2015, Blesma, the Limbless Veterans—previously called the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen’s Association—and the Royal Marines Charity commissioned a Royal Marine triple amputee, John White, to write a report on this matter to be submitted to the Government on behalf of approximately 60 veterans from the Afghanistan campaign. Transfemoral amputees face distinct psychological challenges: they cannot use their leg muscles at all and therefore place extreme strain on their back muscles and spines. This leads to change of weight and stump shape over time. Properly made and well-fitted sockets are therefore vital to being able to restore independence and dignity to these severely wounded men. If you do not have perfectly fitted sockets, you get sores, so you do not wear them and so you do not walk.
The report engaged with the fact that veterans were not funded to source treatment and the manufacture of sockets overseas, since the National Health Service will not fund overseas treatment as it cannot be guaranteed. However, despite the creation of the Murrison centres around the UK—which have certainly improved provision massively for below-knee amputees—we simply do not have enough transfemoral amputees to warrant having experts in the UK who can make sockets that are up to scratch. The expertise does exist in the United States, however, and Royal Marine charities—and, I suspect, other service charities—have been paying to send their men to the Hanger Clinic and to Dream Team Prosthetics in Oklahoma at a cost of about £100,000 for a set of sockets and Ottobock legs. The legs come with a three-year guarantee. As I said, I presume that other service charities are paying out the same.
The report requested that veterans be allowed to source prosthetics and sockets overseas to ensure that adequate sockets could be procured. It was presented to Mr Mark Lancaster, the Minister of State, who engaged with the NHS head of procurement to get a commitment from the NHS to pay for advanced prosthetics for these amputees, at the cost of £70,000 a pair. This is a significant achievement, and great credit goes to Mr Lancaster. However, there are still not the skill-set manufacturers of sockets in the UK of a standard that most severe amputees require, so our marines and others are still going to the US at the relevant charities’ expense. In theory this means that the NHS will not pay for the provision of legs if they are fitted to sockets made elsewhere. This has led to the absurd situation of marines and others accepting substandard sockets from the NHS, made at considerable expense, so that they can get the NHS to pay for a new set of prosthetics rather than ask the charity to pay for them to go to the United States. They then simply take the sockets off and replace them with sockets made in Oklahoma. That is a complete waste of money. The solution is that the NHS, in exceptional cases, should be funding the manufacture of sockets overseas, which will cost about £17,000 to £20,000 a pair.
The Government’s preferred solution is osseo- integration —that is, the fitting of prosthetics directly to the remaining thigh bones, as a one-off expenditure. However, this is exceptionally risky as it is a relatively untested solution. If it goes wrong, it can leave a veteran crippled, with no alternative solution possible. There are photographs available for Ministers to see of osseointegrated legs which have bent under body weight. Until this solution is properly evidenced and agreed, there should be the option of doing what our above-knee amputees do.
Secondly, I will say a few words about modifying houses for the physically disabled. The MoD is committed to funding modifications to houses for serving and transitioning medically discharged veterans a maximum of three times. However, needs change over time. Local authorities and the charities are left to fund future adaptations, as the veterans age and inevitably deteriorate over time. There should be a lifetime commitment to support such medically discharged veterans who have lost their health as a result of service.
Thirdly, I will touch on the plight of those with mental illnesses. In April 2017, the new NHS transition, intervention and liaison scheme was launched. It was intended to ensure that those medically discharged with mental ill-health issues were seamlessly transferred to NHS mental health care. In the process of tendering for the cheapest providers, Combat Stress lost a significant amount of government funding because the contracts were awarded to cheaper providers. This caused a cash crisis, thereby damaging Combat Stress’s ability to support those who had already left the service. This has meant long Combat Stress waiting lists of up to eight months before a referee can attend a residential course of treatment. The cheapest provision can of course mean very thin provision, and it is patchy across NHS regions, leading to long waits and the NHS referring cases to charities at their cost. Treatment includes, for example, eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing. This is apparently the most amazing process, as it programmes the brain away from traumatic memory. It costs about £750 for a course with a therapist local to the veteran. It is not expensive or difficult, and this provision should be replicated.
Lastly—I must not take too long over this—I turn to the Armed Forces compensation scheme. Since 2015, Royal Marines charities and others have employed people to assist marines who have received poor and inadequate Armed Forces compensation scheme settlements and face discharge from the Hasler Naval Service Recovery Centre. For the last three years, it has assisted veterans who have already been discharged. Last year, it dealt with 64 cases in the Royal Marines community alone, in each case winning an increased lump sum and often increased graduated income payments.
Service personnel of all ranks and experience, serving and veteran, do not have the knowledge or experience successfully to navigate the claims process and challenge veterans agency decisions that go against them. A root-and-branch review of the default position being adopted by the Armed Forces compensation scheme must be made. The default position should not be that the least possible compensation should be paid. In addition, the MoD should commission a study into the different levels of compensation available through the civil courts, as opposed to MoD claims, and increase the compensation to civilian levels if the MoD falls short.
I hope that the whole House will agree that only the best is good enough for our service men and women. This country—every one of us—owes them a debt of honour which we can never repay.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Burnett. As he said, for many years we had neighbouring constituencies in God’s own county of Devon, where the armed services are well represented.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Attlee on the way in which he introduced this debate. I agreed with just about everything that he said—not for the first time, I am sure. He flagged up to my noble friend the Minister that, because of the diversity and breadth of the strategy, there was a need to keep a focus on the actuality and detail of how it will impact on individual lives. I totally agree with that point.
I should perhaps declare an interest as chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—a committee to which all senior members of the armed services go for advice when they move from military service to civilian life.
I want to focus on two things, the first being that transition from military service to civilian life. It seems that there are quite a lot of positive things out there, and not just those mentioned in the strategy. Some of the briefings that we received prior to this debate were very encouraging. For example, we have had a briefing from the Federation of Small Businesses, an organisation that I know very well from the years when I did a proper job before entering politics. The federation’s research found that 15% of its members were service leavers, full time and reservist, 15% currently employ service leavers, and 7% have employed, or do employ, reservists. That is extremely encouraging. Starting and running a small business sounds attractive but it is not easy. If you are in a civilian occupation where you can gradually grow a business, that is fine, but the prospect of coming out of military service and becoming self-employed or starting to employ other people in a small business is quite challenging. People need support, training and advice well in advance if they are to make a success of running a small business.
One of the things about transition and the strategy is that I hope we can build as much as possible into those years before somebody leaves military service in order for that training and groundwork—those building blocks—to be put in place. Obviously, it applies not just to those who want to run their own businesses but to those going into other occupations. The more we can do to set the groundwork, rather than just giving a few courses and a bit of briefing at the end, the better—that was the past. I hope we can build on the strategy and what is going on now, so that jobs last and people are successful and feel that they have made that transition for their benefit and that of society as a whole as they take their place in civilian life.
Mental health has been raised by several people in this debate, and nobody could be more able to understand our concerns on this subject than my noble friend Lord Howe, who, for many years, was an exemplary Health Minister. He will understand this subject very well. What I will say probably applies not just to people in the military but to the whole mental health debate per se. He will be familiar with me flagging up some of my concerns on this subject. I hear a lot about parity of esteem and more money going into mental health. All that is to be warmly welcomed from the Government. In practice, mental health is so complex that we really have to start addressing the needs of the individual, rather than treating it as if it applies to a group of people who all have the same problems, challenges and symptoms. That point was raised very well earlier.
I cannot stress how important it is that there is early intervention with mental health. This is not easy. When somebody’s mental health starts to deteriorate, it can be symptomatic of things that are temporary or not too much of a problem—things that people will cope with. It can be a recurring pattern where nothing really gets much worse. But equally, when mental health deteriorates it can go into a downward spiral. The lower the person goes down that spiral, the more difficult it is to pull them up and to identify appropriate support and treatment. The impact of mental health problems, not just on the individual but on their immediate family, cannot be overstated.
As a child, growing up in the post-war years in the 1940s and 1950s, I experienced first hand what post-traumatic stress from the Second World War meant to close members of my family. It is like a tentacle that goes out into the family. People are affected and change their own behaviours when they live with somebody with serious mental health problems. Very often, if they are suffering from post-traumatic stress, it does not present for a very long time, until long after the traumatic event that may have triggered it. In military service, people do not only experience trauma on a scale that most of us will never see in our lifetimes; just witnessing something, whether it has happened to them or to other people around them, can cause serious mental health problems later on.
It is still a problem that getting first appointments and seeing the right people, right across the whole spectrum of mental health care, is so difficult both for former servicepeople and for the civilian population. The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, mentioned that three of us here were MPs in Devon. I remember people whose marriages were breaking up coming to my surgery in Devon to seek my help and advice. Heaven knows why they came to an MP, but when you are an MP, you deal with it all. I used to try to put them in contact with professional counselling and advice services, but the answer would come back, “There is a six-month wait”. If your marriage is breaking up and you have to wait six months, it will usually be done and dusted by then. So it is with mental health. If you have long waits, things will happen: families fall apart; people get into debt; people’s health goes into a downward spiral.
There is one thing I am really keen on, and I hope my noble friend will bear it in mind when looking at the mental health side of the consultation document for the strategy. Apart from the professional help and support given to people who present with post-traumatic stress or any other serious mental health problem, it would be useful for a buddy system to be put in place, which could be done at quite a low cost. Talking therapies have been proved to be invaluable for people with mental health problems. They will still need professional advice from psychiatrists, psychologists and others, but to have a named person as a buddy, even on a voluntary basis, can be invaluable. Sometimes it is even more important to be able to talk to somebody outside the family and away from your circle: talking to somebody just a few steps away from the emotion that goes with it can be invaluable.
My noble friend will know that cancer patients are now given a named person—often a nurse or a volunteer from one of the charities—who will be their buddy throughout their cancer journey. I hope my noble friend will consider looking at a buddy service for those with serious mental health problems, so that they too can have that type of support. It will aid their recovery and aid them in coming forward. That people are reluctant to come forward is another problem. There is a kick-back from the professionals, who say that if the person is not willing to be treated—you get this with mental health problems and with alcohol and drug misuse—then nothing can be done until they are willing. I understand that problem, but I hope my noble friend will feel that the buddy system might help.
I conclude with one further point. I want to support the words of my noble friend Lord Robathan. Like him, I was a signatory to the letter to the Prime Minister last month, in which we again asked her to prevent the legal persecution of veterans, for all the reasons my noble friend set out from his personal experience of serving in the Armed Forces. Nothing could be more damaging to a veteran’s mental health than to have to sit for a long time, waiting to be called to give evidence in a case such as he outlined. I hope we will be able to deal with that as quickly as possible.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I fear that my sandwiches are eaten, but my fox is only wounded so I will continue to make my points in my own way.
In my early 20s, as a young officer in the Army, I had the enormous good fortune to be sent up to Oxford to study history. To repay the MoD for its kindness, I felt it only appropriate to choose as my special subject military history and the theory of war. That special subject took me to All Souls College, where I attended tutorials by that great military historian Sir Michael Howard. The theory of war involved studying two set texts. The first was Sir Julian Corbett’s work on the principles of maritime strategy. I have to say that this did not prove of huge use in my subsequent career, other than giving me the ability, occasionally, to embarrass naval officers who had no idea that, in the age of sail, the art of a successful blockade wholly rested on an ability to create the illusion of dispersal, while maintaining the ability to concentrate at any given time.
The second text was Carl von Clausewitz’s classic work, On War. What I most remember from the many revelations that Sir Michael made from this work related to his explanation of the Clausewitzian trinity. That trinity identified that war was the realm of three separate things or ingredients. The first was the ingredient of probability, chance and friction. This was the domain of the Army at war. The second ingredient was that of reason. This was the domain of the Government, whose duty it is to give logic, purpose or sense to war. The third ingredient was that of passion. This is the domain of the people, for it is the people who supply the national motivating spirit that supports both the Government and the Armed Forces. According to the Clausewitzian theory, war most closely approaches its apogee when all three of these elements are mutually supporting and reinforcing. In historical terms, Clausewitz saw this as the situation enjoyed by Napoleon at his height.
In my more recent service life over the past 10 years or so, I have often reflected about the degree to which the Clausewitzian trinity has, to some extent, been fractured in our country. The last decade or so has been typified by government Ministers who occasionally suspect the motivation of their generals, admirals or air marshals; a society that is deeply concerned by the reasoning of their Government when it comes to committing Armed Forces to war; and generals who sense that the passion of the people manifests itself primarily in sympathy for, rather than informed support of, the Armed Forces.
This situation is a direct legacy of having to fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan—unpopular wars. It is a situation that forms a potentially distorting context for a policy on veterans, and it has created the most unfortunate context for successful recruiting. It does so because service life is seen by too many ill-informed people to be a brutalising experience; and too many charities in pursuit of funding contribute to the distorted illusion that service men and women are victims who, particularly in their post-service life, need to enjoy some form of permanent charitable status.
The truth is so very different. For the vast majority of service men and women, a career in the Armed Forces is both a life-changing and a life-enhancing experience. If you doubt me, let me offer you some of the MoD’s most recent statistics. How many people—not in this House but in wider society—recognise that the Armed Forces are the nation’s single biggest provider of apprenticeships, with 19,000 currently on apprenticeship schemes and a total of over 46,000 apprentice start-ups since 2015?
The most recent evidence on the employment of service leavers, mentioned earlier, shows that 82% of those exiting through the career transition workshop were in full-time employment within six months—that is higher than the 75% employment rate of the UK population in the round. The occupational groups that service leavers join are impressive: 22% into skilled trades; 20% into associate professional and technical trades; 14% as process plant and machine operatives; 11% into professional occupations such as teaching, health, media and public service; 8% as managers, directors and senior officials. What about the missing 18%? Forty per cent of those went back into education or the voluntary sector; 6% have retired; 12% are travelling abroad; 9% have medical problems; 8% are looking after their families; and we have lost track of the rest.
All the evidence suggests that employers hugely appreciate the transferable skills of leadership, problem solving, team working, communication skills and self-discipline that service leavers offer. Employers respect the vocational skills of service leavers in areas such as electronics, engineering and project management, and recognise their ability to conform to their companies’ rules, values, ethos and standards. Ex-service leavers are a unique pool of talent that offers many benefits to both society and the economy and they undoubtedly strengthen the workforce of all kinds of different civilian organisations.
Why do I say all this? I do so in an attempt to balance an ill-informed but popular view that service life inevitably leads to a situation that somehow presents a national social crisis. It most definitely does not. But I am hugely aware that a small percentage of service leavers, particularly the wounded, undoubtedly deserve some special consideration. We need a strategy for our veterans that ensures that that special consideration is afforded to a small number who at the end of service life need and deserve some specific help. I wholly applaud the Government’s strategy which recognises this, but I do not want that strategy to distort the reality that service life offers the vast majority of service men and women a life of betterment and advancement. I do not want the wholly justifiable interests of service charities to undermine that simple fact.
I want the passion of society and the reason of Government to support the needs of our veterans, but I also want that reason and passion to support the Armed Forces in being. We need to actively recalibrate society’s understanding of the remarkable benefits of service life. Those benefits are not just for the individuals but for wider society as well.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Attlee for bringing forward this debate. The Armed Forces are very close to my heart. Three years ago I made my maiden speech in this Chamber about the Armed Forces covenant. Despite our religion, race or creed, despite the party that we support, we came together on Sunday to honour all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and for our liberty. While we commemorated the end of the First World War, we also pay tribute to all those who have served and are still serving in our Armed Forces. We are so grateful for and humbled by our veterans’ sacrifice and service, and for their contribution since leaving the Armed Forces.
Our country’s Government can never serve our veterans in quite the same way that they have served us—but, because we asked them for the greatest sacrifice, we must be prepared to do whatever we can to assist them whenever they need our help. This Government have made meeting the needs of the Armed Forces one of their highest priorities. This is only right: when men and women risk their lives in our defence, they should expect nothing less.
Unfortunately, veterans, particularly those who through no fault of their own have landed on hard times, often feel undervalued for their service. Our support for the armed services must go further than simply wearing a poppy for two weeks a year. So, with that in mind, I am proud that the Government are increasing their support for service personnel, families and veterans by adopting a more holistic approach.
Service families do so much to support their loved ones who are serving in the Armed Forces. We need to make sure that we are able to reinforce this. It is right that we are launching a spousal employment support scheme, helping service personnel’s spouses to find the jobs that they want, and so ensuring that they can support their family while having the opportunity to be rewarded for their hard work. I welcome the creation of a development scheme for those serving to ensure that they have the right personal and professional skills—skills that are vital for succeeding in life both while they serve and after they leave the Armed Forces. Also significant is the launching of this Government’s transition policy, giving those leaving the Armed Forces a helping hand as they move into civilian life. This initiative goes far beyond blunt financial support. It will provide support for resettlement, health and well-being, housing advice and pastoral care.
The Government have a record to be immensely proud of. They created the Armed Forces covenant to stop our service personnel from being disadvantaged. The covenant has created greater awareness across society of the challenges that service personnel, veterans and their families face.
The launching of the Forces Help to Buy scheme has helped more than 14,300 people buy their home. In 2012, the Government changed the law so that former service personnel with urgent housing needs are always given priority for social housing. We have urged local authorities to prioritise Armed Forces members and their families for social housing.
We must continue to do more, particularly by doing what we can to prevent our veterans becoming homeless. While the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has published guidance for councils on providing homelessness services to veterans, we must not waver in our commitment to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and eliminate it by 2027. I am proud to support a Government with such a commitment to our service personnel. However, with estimates on the number of homeless veterans ranging from 7,000 to 13,000, I implore the Government to do more to support veterans. Seeing anyone homeless or sleeping rough is tragic, but it is even more so when it affects those who have done so much for our country.
This Government have a proud record on commitment to our Armed Forces, but we must not rest on our laurels. We must continue to find new ways to help our veterans and service personnel. The veterans support strategy is evidence of this. I know that this Government will continue not only to respect and honour the dedication and bravery of our Armed Forces but to value them. We must be certain to deliver the support and care that our brave service men and women and veterans deserve.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the debate and am grateful to my noble friend Lord Attlee for initiating it. It is humbling to speak after so many noble Lords who have not only served in, but led and commanded, the British Armed Forces on the battlefield.
In Virginia Woolf’s novel Mrs Dalloway, there is a character called Septimus Smith, who will be familiar to many of your Lordships. In the book, it is 1923; Septimus has returned from the First World War with his life utterly changed. His war experiences have left him incapable of functioning in society and he struggles with his mental health. The people he meets in St James’s Park think that he behaves oddly and cannot relate to him. He ends his life in a violent way. He dies not on a battlefield in a foreign land but in his homeland, which is now at peace.
A hundred years have passed since the First World War. We have seen technological advances beyond anything that could have been imagined in 1914 or 1918. We have deepened our understanding of mental health issues and developed vastly the medical care available to treat them. Yet service men and women today still battle misunderstandings and mental health challenges not dissimilar to those faced by the fictional Septimus. The recent reports that 40 former or current service men and women are believed to have taken their lives this year are shocking. They too died a violent death, not on a battlefield in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere, but here in today’s Britain, among us.
The past three decades have seen the Armed Forces exposed to the most intensive and sustained combat conditions and the highest casualty rates since World War II. I want to put on record my admiration and gratitude for all those who serve our country in uniform and the sacrifices they make on our behalf. I therefore welcome the Government’s efforts to ensure not only that veterans of the UK Armed Forces are recognised for their service, but that we seek to go a step further in understanding them and upholding their status in our society, based on not only recognition and appreciation, but respect.
I welcome the work done over the past eight years by this Government and their predecessor, the coalition Government, on the Armed Forces covenant, which was enshrined in the Armed Forces Act 2011, and the Ministerial Covenant and Veterans Board. I also welcome the leadership shown by the Secretary of State for Defence in establishing this new veterans strategy. I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister and my right honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, Tobias Ellwood, for their tireless work to improve the support available to veterans, in particular the focus on mental health and homelessness—complex issues that need strong and focused attention.
I also want to pay tribute to the work done by Lord Ashcroft, who, until a few months ago studiously and imaginatively worked on the Veterans’ Transition Review and subsequent updates. His contribution was a crucial factor in the recent advances made by the Government, local authorities, the devolved Administrations, the charity sector and the Armed Forces in the area of veterans policy.
I welcome the Government’s efforts to ensure that all these initiatives, which have been developed separately until now, are brought together under one umbrella, and their determination to counter any perception that service in the Armed Forces has a damaging effect on personnel, notwithstanding some problems that we must address.
I welcome the collective commitment that has been shown, but want to address three points. First, as we rightly seek to help and support those who fought and are now trying to reintegrate into civilian life, we must not forget the families of those who did not come home. There is no compensation for losing a parent, but we can show our collective gratitude to those who paid the ultimate price. I am therefore particularly pleased to see the Government continuing the scholarship programme for children whose parents died in service. How many students have benefited from the scholarships since they were announced in 2010? What lessons have been learned to ensure that the scholarships are more widely available to those who need support for their education? Is there a plan to have the scheme upgraded and widened so that more children can benefit? Should the scheme be extended to the families of service personnel who have taken their lives?
The second issue is accommodation. I welcome the Government’s commitment to aid the transition of service personnel to civilian life and understanding of the vital part that the access to suitable housing plays in this process. Yet some service personnel still fall through the support net and find themselves homeless. What thought has been given to whether surplus service living accommodation can be used to house service personnel who have become homeless or are living in accommodation not suitable for their needs, at least during their transitional period?
Finally, the Armed Forces are a reflection of our wider society, which is sadly blighted by the hidden problem of domestic violence and domestic abuse. I suspect that most of us know somebody who has been affected by it. I can imagine the stress of a battlefield only exacerbating this problem in some cases. I welcome the Ministry of Defence’s launch earlier this year of its first defence domestic abuse strategy to tackle domestic abuse in the Armed Forces and defence civilian communities. Will this apply to veterans’ families as well?
The Government can be proud of the effort invested and the outcomes achieved in ensuring that veterans and their families are given more of the support, help and respect that they deserve. This is our collective duty. Time will tell whether what has been put in place is enough. We must therefore strive always to do more and better.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for introducing this debate. We have been discussing the challenge of veterans for a decade now. When I saw the title of this debate, I thought, “Well, let’s see where we’ve got to in actually achieving things”. The core achievement to date has been the Armed Forces covenant, which has had pretty widespread approval. It is therefore useful to measure how the Armed Forces have fared under its care.
It is important to realise what the covenant says. It is on one page and begins:
“An Enduring Covenant Between”.
The language is all quite flowery—there are three paragraphs—but right in the middle is a paragraph which, if it does not have teeth, has clarity. I fear that I have to tell noble Lords that it is not only not the best, it is almost the opposite. In fact, this paragraph says two things: that veterans “should face no disadvantage” and that in some circumstances there should be “special consideration”. It is against those tests—unless we want to change them—that we have to judge how well the Government are doing. So let us look at some areas.
Housing has been a real problem, particularly the way that local authorities behave, and the Government have worked hard on it. The progress report on the covenant is contained in an annual report, the last of which was published in December 2017. It said, talking about how local authorities had been instructed:
“The package included: ensuring Veterans with urgent housing needs were always given priority for social housing; encouraging councils to take account of the needs of the Armed Forces Community in their policy making, and introducing regulations to ensure councils did not disqualify Service personnel who had recently left the Services and did not meet the local connection test”.
We had a debate about a year and a half ago, in which I said that my test of this is Rushmore. Rushmore, for those who do not know, is Aldershot and Farnborough under a fancy new name. Its housing policy 18 months ago did not refer to veterans. I have looked it up and it now says precisely the things that the covenant calls for: the Government get a tick for that. There is a problem though. It says that veterans effectively have fair access to social housing. The problem is that there is no social housing. The problem with fair access to very little is that it is very little. It is the basic housing issues in this country, especially social housing, that we have to get right for all our citizens, including veterans.
Veterans are also part, sadly, of the scourge of rough sleeping. The data suggests that the incidence is about the same as in the general population, but I agree that there should be no rough sleeping, for any of our citizens. If we can tackle that issue then we will indeed do the right job for veterans.
The next area I looked at was training. There are lots of references in various bits of literature to how wonderful service personnel are, how well adapted to exciting jobs in the real world, but the individuals who illustrate this are frequently reasonably senior people who have done well. Does the system look after the private infantryman who has done four years and comes out at the age of 22 or 23? I fear not, and I hope that the Minister can disabuse me. Where would that individual traditionally have looked to in order to get some qualifications, because it is perfectly reasonable that people with life experiences do not have qualifications? He would have looked to adult education. Adult education has had its funding cut by £3 billion in recent years. There used to be 5.2 million people in adult education: the figure is now down to 1.9 million. Again, I am sure that service veterans are getting fair access to this, but they are getting fair access to one-third of the provision they would have received but a few years ago.
I then went on to look at mental health, which is a very interesting area. There have been clear improvements in recent years, making access to mental health services fairer and making sure that the transition between the military and the NHS is good. However, let us not kid ourselves that this is anything other than “not disadvantaged”. Indeed, the 2017 report on the covenant talks of,
“access times and outcomes at least as good (and sometimes better) than for the general population”.
It is commendable that it is being achieved, but it is all that is being achieved.
Let us move on to the second promise in the covenant. The precise words in that extremely powerful paragraph are:
“Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most such as the injured and the bereaved”.
We have talked about the bereaved and those injured, in the physical sense, but are there other senses of injury? If we look at mental health in the total population, the incidence of mental ill-health in veterans is not grossly dissimilar to that of the general population but—and it is an important but—on PTSD, the picture is different.
A press release from Kings College London has said:
“New research from Kings College London suggests the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan may have led to an increase in the rate of probable Post Traumatic Stress Disorder … among members of the UK Armed Forces”.
It went on to say:
“The higher rates of probable PTSD is primarily seen among ex-serving personnel who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Among those who deployed to the conflict, the rate of probable PTSD for veterans was 9% compared to 5% for veterans who did not deploy. The rate of probable PTSD among currently serving personnel was also 5%, which is close to the rate … in the general population … Among ex-serving personnel who deployed in a combat role to Iraq or Afghanistan, 17% reported symptoms suggesting probable PTSD compared to 6% of those deployed in a support role”.
It is clear that this illness is related, at least statistically, to combat experience. That seems to fall in the general territory of special consideration. When one looks at what PTSD is all about, it is terrifying. I looked it up on the NHS website and I am not sure how people survive it, with their,
“Re-experiencing … flashbacks … Avoidance and emotional numbing … Hyperarousal … Angry outbursts … depression … Drug misuse”,
et cetera. Here, surely, is the case for special treatment.
Unfortunately, according to the Defence Committee, the situation does not really seem to come up for special treatment. The committee said in its report:
“We are particularly concerned that the Armed Forces Covenant principle of priority treatment when a condition is service-related is not being consistently applied across the UK. The Department of Health and Social Care considers that the NHS founding principles on equality and clinical need constrain how it can provide priority treatment to veterans. This difference in interpretation is confusing not just to veterans but also to clinicians; this may add to veterans’ perception that the health service is failing them”.
It seems to me that this area falls classically into the second part of the covenant’s promise and that the Government are failing in not addressing it directly.
In many of the areas where service veterans suffer, the problem is that the general population is suffering, be it housing, training or mental health. I accept that the Government have achieved their objective of not disadvantaging veterans in many areas and have made good progress in recent times. We have to address the fundamental supply of those areas and be much better at being sensitive to the second promise, where special consideration should apply.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, it is a remarkable and heart-warming feature of your Lordships’ House that across all Benches and shades of political opinion, we find ourselves in almost total unison on the theme so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Attlee on the obligation that we have as a society to ensure the welfare and well- being of our Armed Forces veterans. The recent commemorations marking the centenary of the Armistice have brought this message into even sharper focus, and while in this country we have a long and proud history of supporting those who have stepped up to protect and defend us, it is morally right that we should continue delivering that support in the best possible way and, where we can, look to do more.
It is against that background that the Government published yesterday The Strategy for our Veterans, a long-term, 10-year vision that outlines what we aim to do to ensure that each and every man and woman who is leaving, or has left, one of our Armed Services feels they are “Valued, Contributing, Supported” in leading a fulfilling and rewarding life.
Much has been done in recent years in pursuit of that end, but the publication of the strategy marks the first time that Governments across the United Kingdom have come together to articulate a joint statement of strategic intent, setting out in clear terms the tangible outcomes we wish to achieve for veterans’ services along with the vision and the principles that will underpin them. Those outcomes, and that vision, are the product of wide consultation with academia, veterans themselves and many of our excellent service charities—the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, Help for Heroes, Cobseo, Combat Stress, Veterans Scotland and others—as well as the three service benevolent funds and the three service families funds.
We estimate that there are some 2.5 million veterans in Great Britain. They are not a homogenous group. They can be former regulars or reservists. They can be younger or older, in good health or in poor health. They hail from every part of the United Kingdom, and from diverse backgrounds. In consequence, their needs and experiences will be very different, a difference that is reflected in the wide range of organisations—public, private and charitable—which are charged with ensuring that the debt we owe to them is properly and effectively delivered.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the document is not a blueprint for delivery, it is a strategy. It maps out a direction of travel, clearly waymarked by a number of factors and themes that are relevant to improving the lives of veterans, and it will, in that sense, hold us to account in measuring success. For each of those cross-cutting factors and themes there is an outcome for the year 2028 towards which all UK nations will work to deliver.
In furtherance of those objectives, the UK Government have published a consultation alongside the strategy. The consultation addresses the wide range of ways in which public services are delivered to veterans, but in essence it seeks to ask one overarching question: how can we do better? We in the Government may have our own answers, but it is only those at the sharp end who know what works best and who can tell us where the real gaps are. We want to hear from them.
The various themes covered in the strategy will be familiar. They are the challenges posed by the transition from service to civilian life; the need to find stable and fulfilling employment; the impact of a veteran’s service experience on their state of health; and the need for a home. These and other challenges are ones which we must help our veterans, wherever possible, to take in their stride, but where they falter, we must be there to support them. The consultation picks up on all these themes in greater detail and poses a series of questions on those issues where we most need answers. I encourage noble Lords to submit their views and to alert others to do so.
In addressing some of the many issues and questions that have been put during this debate, I shall begin with one raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, who called for a dedicated veterans ministry. I recognise that governance and collaboration around all these issues could be strengthened, hence the consultation that we have launched, but the key issue, surely, is delivery of policy and delivery of services. At governmental level, the Ministerial Covenant and Veterans Board is co-chaired by my right honourable friends the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and has ministerial representatives from all government departments and devolved Governments. At ground level, responsibility for delivery is diverse, but in practical terms for a veteran in need of help and advice, Veterans UK and the Veterans’ Gateway will enable any veteran to receive the support they need.
I now turn to a topic which has loomed large in today’s debate, not least for my noble friends Lord Attlee, Lady Browning and Lady Helic and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, which is mental health provision. Mental health services are delivered to veterans by the NHS. We in government know that some patients wait too long and that additional resources are needed. The Government are already investing £12 billion in mental health. In the Budget an additional £2 billion for mental health was promised by 2020, and the NHS will invest up to £250 million a year in new crisis services by 2023-24. I hope that gives a sense of how committed we are to the mental health and well-being of the population at large but also of our service personnel and veterans.
We fully recognise that service life can cause stress. We announced in October last year a new partnership with the Royal Foundation that will provide resources for training and education for the Armed Forces community around good mental fitness. In July last year the Defence People Mental Health and Wellbeing strategy was launched. It identifies the need for strong partnerships with the Department of Health and Social Care, the NHS, the devolved Administrations and the charitable sector. The MoD has provided a new 24-hour mental health helpline, which is targeted at serving personnel and their families, allowing them to access support for any mental health problems any time, anywhere, and of course there is the Combat Stress helpline for veterans. As part of the consultation, though, we will look at the idea that was very helpfully suggested by my noble friend Lady Browning; namely, what buddy support is already provided and whether it should be strengthened further. I thought that was a most interesting idea.
As I have said, we take the well-being of personnel very seriously, and we are funding research so that we can continue to do so. The aim of the study currently taking place at King’s College London is to understand the ways in which mental health is impacted during the years following exposure to conflict. The study suggests that the symptoms of PTSD can manifest several years after an individual has deployed, which I am sure we all instinctively knew. That is why the King’s College research is still ongoing. As the senior author, Professor Sir Simon Wessely, who is a world-renowned expert in this field, has pointed out in relation to the most recently published data,
“it would be wrong to say there is a ‘bow wave’, ‘tsunami’ or ‘time bomb’ of PTSD in the UK military and veteran community”,
but we need to analyse and take seriously what is actually happening.
I will answer a number of my noble friend Lady Helic’s questions in writing. However, I shall address the very important issue that she raised at the beginning of her speech: the rate of suicides. Every study conducted by the MoD has found that the risk of suicide among the Armed Forces community, including veterans of the 1982 Falklands War and the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, is lower than among the general population. However, we will commission a new study on the risk of suicide for those who served between 2001 and 2014 covering combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is important that we get to the bottom of those statistics.
The Department of Health and Social Care has had a national suicide prevention strategy in place since 2012 and that aims to address the causes of suicide for every civilian, not just veterans. Veterans are identified in the strategy as requiring tailored approaches to meet their mental health needs. That has resulted in NHS England’s veterans’ mental health transition, intervention and liaison service, which since its launch in April last year has supported hundreds of veterans and their families. That is complemented by the veterans’ mental health complex treatment service, launched in April this year to support those with the most complex needs, with holistic support for the whole person and their family.
My noble friend Lady Pidding and others referred to the defence holistic transition policy. That is aimed at better co-ordinating the assistance that is out there and to supplement it to prepare service personnel and their families who are about to leave the Armed Forces. That will be launched later this year. My noble friend Lady Browning spoke of the need for advance preparation, and I can tell her that the chain of command will routinely discuss with individuals throughout their career their plans and preparations for life after the military. Immediately prior to leaving the Armed Forces, the chain of command will assess their readiness to leave and refer those needing extra support to the defence transition service. The specialist defence transition services team within Veterans UK will support those who need it most by undertaking a thorough needs assessment to determine the best interventions required by that individual.
I turn to another extremely pressing and important issue: that of homelessness. We take this extremely seriously, and I was very grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, for his constructive suggestions in this area. I start by saying that this year, there is a new statutory responsibility on the MoD to refer anyone leaving the military at risk of homelessness to the relevant local authority. Under the new defence holistic transition policy, early service leavers who are assessed by their chain of command as needing extra support will be referred to the defence transition service, which will undertake a thorough needs assessment to determine the best interventions required by that individual, including housing.
Housing was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I can tell him that, in line with the Armed Forces covenant, veterans who have,
“reasonable preference and more urgent housing needs”,
must be given additional preference—high priority for social housing. This requirement applies also to bereaved spouses of Armed Forces personnel and seriously injured or disabled veterans of the regular or reserve service. These are the only groups of citizens whose priority is based on prior employment. I say to my noble friend Lady Helic that the MoD is reviewing options which will assist with housing support for veterans. I take the point ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on the question of supply.
As regards rough sleeping, one veteran on the street is too many. That is why we implemented the Homelessness Reduction Act, which will ensure that service men and women can work with their local authority earlier to ensure that homelessness is prevented. That is also why we published the Rough Sleeping Strategy, backed by £100 million of funding. We are committed to delivering our manifesto commitment to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and end it by 2027.
My noble friend Lord Robathan touched on a sensitive set of issues about the legacy investigations into Northern Ireland veterans. There is broad agreement within Northern Ireland that the current systems and structures to deal with the legacy of the Troubles are not delivering enough for victims, survivors and wider society. The Northern Ireland Secretary launched a consultation on legacy issues on 11 May which closed on 5 October. Her department is carefully considering the many responses to the consultation and will set out in due course how it intends to move forward. We recognise the growing concern about the repeated investigation and prosecution of veterans in relation to historic operations. That is why we established a dedicated team to examine all the options to increase legal protection for these individuals. The team is working with colleagues across government to find the best way forward. Of course, we have not forgotten the need to provide the legal and welfare support to military veterans who are subject to investigation.
I turn to other health-related issues. The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, referred to the problem of adequate advanced prosthetics—a very interesting topic, but one on which I am certainly not an expert. He may be interested to know that the Complex Prosthetic Assessment Clinic was introduced at Headley Court in 2016 for the small number of veterans with particularly challenging prosthetic needs. Since its inception, the clinic has seen 40 individual patients, six of whom have subsequently been treated under the LIBOR-funded direct skeletal fixation technique. That involves the insertion of a titanium implant into the bone, eliminating the need for traditional socket-based technology. As the prosthetic is anchored directly to the bone, it offers greater freedom from the limitations and complications commonly associated with socket-based prosthetic systems. The Government are simultaneously funding research into direct skeletal fixation and we look forward to the results.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, also referred to issues around adaptations to housing. As I am sure he knows, there are various grants available to allow disabled people to continue to live at home, including the disabled facilities grant. People can get a grant from their council if they are disabled and need to make changes to their home—for example, to widen doors, install ramps, improve access to rooms and facilities, or install a downstairs bathroom. Having said all that, we shall await responses to the consultation if it is felt that this package of measures that is currently available does not meet veterans’ needs in every case.
My noble friend Lady Fookes, whose work with war widows I have admired for many years, asked about the reinstatement of war pensions. The Government recognise the unique commitment that service families make to the country and we remain sympathetic to the circumstances of those widows who remarried or cohabited before 1 April 2015. However, as my noble friend recognises, this is a complex policy area, and it is taking time to carefully consider the potential options within both financial and legal constraints, and I can tell her that my friends at the Treasury are currently considering the issue actively.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, referred to the Armed Forces compensation scheme, which is covered on page 26 of the consultation, as he has probably seen. An independent review of that scheme in 2016 found that it remained fit for purpose and recommended both the uplift of the lump sum tariff awards and a review of the maximum tariff level award for mental health conditions.
My noble friend Lord Attlee, and others, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, referred to the need for better data. As most veterans transition successfully from the Armed Forces and do not need help after discharge, it would be inappropriate to mandatorily track all of them; it is much more important to focus on the significant minority who do require additional support. We must respect at the same time that some individuals will not want to maintain a connection with the MoD, or they may not wish to declare their service. However, more data on specific cohorts would certainly aid delivery organisations. An amendment to the Data Protection Act 2018 allows the MoD to verify contact details of the ex-Regular Reserves against HMRC data to check whether people have moved—because obviously we need to know where people are. I can tell my noble friend Lord Attlee that national insurance numbers are used as the unique identifier between the two datasets.
Time is against me. I am conscious that I have not had time to answer a number of questions, but I assure noble Lords whose questions remain in the air that I will write after this debate with as full a response as I can, and copy in all noble Lords. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to conclude on that note. It has been a most constructive debate and I am extremely grateful to all speakers who have troubled to take part, and to share their ideas and their wisdom. A century on from the Great War, our people continue to give their all for our country. Our obligation to do right by them and their families remains steadfast. As the themes and programmes outlined in the strategy are developed further over the coming months and years, for the benefit of our veterans, we will continue to do our utmost to deliver on the debt we owe them.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister who, once again, has not disappointed us in the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, raised an issue about prosthetics of which I was not aware. I do not believe that the service charities should be funding prosthetics; they should be funded by central government. Service charities should be funding things that central government should not be funding. We will have to see how that issue progresses in the future. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Yemen
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the urgent question of how to achieve peace in Yemen. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what action HMG are taking following the Foreign Secretary’s visit to the Gulf, and to the contributions of noble Lords to this rather delayed debate.
The 27 million people of Yemen face a kind of Dante’s Inferno; they are today’s forgotten people. It has become a failed state, which is exploited as if by piranhas by disparate groups in the country with a vested interest in continuing warfare through illicit trade and arms smuggling. It is also a breeding ground for al-Qaeda and Islamic State.
I must explain my interest in this country. My father, the late Sir William Luce, was governor of Aden in the late 1950s. The British ruled the southern part of Yemen forming a federation of Arab Emirates of the South, while the Imam led in what is now northern Yemen. Today, the Sir William Luce memorial fund based in Durham University finances, among other things, an annual fellowship. In 2016 Dr Helen Lackner, who lived in Yemen for over 15 years, gave her Luce lecture, providing a brilliant description of how Yemen’s tribal life and society had been transformed over 60 years. She demonstrated that the 30 years’ dictatorship of the late President Saleh seriously undermined Yemen’s society, creating a kleptocratic tribal military nexus riven by intra-elite power struggles. This has left Yemen with an unsustainable governance system, absolute water shortages, insufficient natural resources, low educational standards and the poorest people in the Arab world. Yemen today cannot be viewed in any way as a modern national state. We have to consider the rivalry of different groups within a fragmented country. These include the separatist tribal south, Aden, the Hadramaut, Taiz, the highland tribal territories and the land in the north and west, now occupied by the Houthis.
We can agree with our Saudi friends that Yemen as a failed state is a threat to their stability and that the Houthis are being encouraged by Iran to weaken Saudi Arabia, including by threatening it with missiles. We can see too that the Saudis would like access to the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb and the ports so that they can be less dependent on the Strait of Hormuz with its Iranian threat. At the same time our friends in the UAE are showing a different level of interest in establishing military bases in south Yemen and in ports on both sides of the Indian Ocean.
We need to be clear that the coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and with which the US, France and the UK are associated, has been pursuing its ends through a cruel war which it cannot win. Moreover, the unmitigated rivalry between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran risks destabilising not only Yemen but many other parts of a region vital to the international community.
In Yemen itself, the coalition’s action has undoubtedly made a bad situation much worse. Since 2016, over 10,000 people have been killed and some 1,250 children have lost their lives through air strikes. The latest information from the UN humanitarian chief, Mark Lowcock, demonstrates that the country is on the verge of a massive famine. Some 14 million people are now entirely reliant on external aid to survive; 22 million are in need of support including 11 million children; 16 million are without access to safe water. Fuel imports are 25% of the requirements. Civil servants are not being paid. Health services are virtually non-existent. Prices of food and other products are increasing steadily due to devaluation of the currency, the rial. There is high unemployment except for those who are exploiting the conflict. This is truly a failed state.
At this stage I must welcome the Government’s support through DfID and the UN for the people of Yemen. In addition to general humanitarian assistance, I know that we are providing £170 million of support, much of which is helping malnourished children and providing vaccinations against cholera. Can the Minister clarify what else we are doing in this area?
Despite our diminished role in the world, and indeed our preoccupation with Brexit, it is surely very much in our interests to seek urgently a peaceful resolution in Yemen. Today we can achieve this only by working internationally with many other nations. I want to ask the Minister about our proposed next steps in the UN Security Council. We are the pen holders. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement of 5 November that we will work within the Security Council and ensure that Resolution 2216 is made more balanced and realistic, particularly in relation to the role of the Houthis. We must clearly work as closely as possible with the United States and respond to its lead in calling for a ceasefire by the end of November. But a ceasefire on its own is pointless unless there are clear proposals for starting discussions to end the conflict. I assume that we will work relentlessly with the UN through this month to ensure that the UN envoy, Mr Griffiths, is given an urgent remit to bring about peace negotiations.
This leads me inevitably to the issue of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. We have enjoyed a long-standing friendship with that country for over 100 years. Today, intelligence and counterterrorism are common concerns. We have major trade and economic interests in the kingdom, including of course our defence sales and military assistance. It is now abundantly clear, however, that the continuing of a war led by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is not going to solve the Yemen problem and bring peace on its own. The Saudi Crown Prince is indeed trying to introduce many economic, cultural and other reforms, including more freedom for women, but he is using the pursuit of military victory in Yemen as well as dictatorial means to achieve this and to strengthen his position. This will be counterproductive. We must not only say so frankly, as friends, but also be prepared to use what influence we have, in conjunction with our western allies, to persuade the Saudis and their coalition to adopt a different approach. The Saudis should take seriously the very real pressures here and elsewhere to curtail the supplies of essential armaments and other military support, as well as the measures that the US Administration have already taken on aircraft refuelling.
The next few weeks will be crucial. The battle for the port of Hodeidah could have big implications. It is vital of course to ensure that food supplies continue to get to the people, but it will in the end be essential for the Houthis to see their self-interest in ending that battle and finding a peaceful resolution in which they play a role. This is one of those times when tragic events seem to be persuading the international community to change direction. It is in our interests not to ignore the rest of the world, but rather to take this opportunity to play a constructive role to achieve peace in Yemen. There could not be a more appropriate time to be peacemakers than the centennial anniversary of the Armistice.
In addition to the discussions that the Foreign Secretary has held in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, the Government need to show vigorous and visible activity at the UN and fresh new direction in their thinking, including revisiting Security Council Resolution 2216. We have to work internationally to assess the immediate emergency needs of Yemen and to prevent famine. We also have to work with the US, France and Germany and with constructive voices in the region, such as Oman and Kuwait, towards a fresh political approach, thinking where we can outside the box. We need too to think ahead about how we can realistically help the reconstruction of Yemen and end the famine. We have to address how in a fragmented failed state we can pursue, perhaps through the mediation of regional participants, movement towards some kind of a federal framework and system of governance.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and to reassurance that the Government are still willing and able to play a constructive role for stability in other parts of the world, not least in Yemen.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for securing this important debate.
I am told that the ancient name for Yemen was Arabia Felix. It is certainly not a happy country any more. I recently received messages from a friend whose family still lives in Yemen. His sister writes, “One thing you don’t expect is the eerie silence. Due to petrol shortages, there are no cars on the roads. Even the children have stopped crying … Suicide is a mortal sin in Islam, yet for the first time there are stories of ‘family suicides’ where a desperate single mother, or a deeply impoverished family, choose to end their own lives and the lives of their children since this is the ‘less painful’ way out of the nightmare they’re in … We now realize that the entire world has turned its back on us—we’re on our own”.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visits to the Gulf. He is right to say that there is,
“a short window to make a difference”.
I hope that his energy will be matched with action that will help stop the shameful disaster that is the war in Yemen. I also welcome the recent American and United Kingdom shift to advocating a ceasefire. However, I regret that this did not come sooner. The Saudis have been embarrassed before the world, not for the thousands of civilians killed in Yemen and their own ambitions to control that country, but by the appalling killing of one man, the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Saudi Arabia should rightly face strong international diplomatic pressure for atrocities of this kind. But we should collectively ask ourselves what has happened to our moral compass if we respond more to that one killing than to the faces of thousands of emaciated children being starved to death in front of our very eyes, for years now.
Stepping back in time, I believe that we did not intend our Government’s initial support for the coalition to become a blank cheque. I do not say this lightly, and I am sure that that Ministers themselves are not comfortable with the course the conflict has taken. But sadly, we have shown a touch of naivety and a lack of understanding of the Middle East and of the history of Saudi ambitions in Yemen, and we have failed to put uppermost the interests and values of the United Kingdom. We and our allies claimed we would have leverage to push the coalition to abide by international humanitarian law and to support parallel diplomatic efforts. That has clearly not been the case. Unfortunately, we all failed in limiting and ultimately ending the war.
I hope that as we prepare to try to bring about a ceasefire, we will bear in mind two lessons. The first is that our so-called influence is weak and almost non-existent. Unless we use the leverage we possess, collectively, as arms suppliers and trade partners, Europe, the United States and we will fail to affect the calculations of stronger regional actors. I cannot see any justification for not suspending arms export licences to Saudi Arabia and other countries engaged in operations in Yemen, given the compelling evidence that international humanitarian law has been breached by all parties to the conflict—including of course, the Houthi rebels themselves. Can the Minister say whether it is too late to stop Saudis using the US and UK weaponry that we have provided? Can he confirm whether the United Kingdom is currently providing assistance to coalition operations with targeting?
The second lesson is surely that policy should be based not on partiality to one side or the other, as it is at the present, but on sound analysis. The Trump Administration is purely wrong to fully endorse Riyadh’s narrative that the Houthi rebels represent an extension of Tehran’s destabilising hand in the tumultuous region and that the Hadi Government can simply be reinstated. Houthis have local grievances. They began their revolt in 2004, when Iran was not a player in Yemen. They get some support from Iran but would fight on regardless without it. Does the Minister agree that a new political settlement in Yemen must include all domestic political forces?
I welcome the Government’s reinvigorated engagement in the region. I know that we have long-term relationships with the regional powers, as well as important security interests, and I know that Ministers always strive to act in the interest of our own country. But Britain is always at her best when our interests and our support for human rights align. I fear that our current policy in Yemen is serving neither as it should.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has set out very clearly the extent to which Yemen is a failed state, and I will not repeat what he said. He also made it clear that the war in Yemen is a calamity. The suffering of thousands and thousands of innocent people, many of whom are children, is horrific. Severe malnutrition is common- place—400,000 children are suffering from it and some have already died of starvation. We are now warned by humanitarian agencies that by the beginning of next year famine is likely to affect as many as 13 million people—half the country’s population. Were this to happen, it would be the biggest famine for a century.
I turn to the statistics on the humanitarian crisis that already exist. Over 20 million people, constituting 75% of the population, are in need. There are 2 million displaced people, of whom nearly 90% have been displaced for more than a year. Cholera is now rampant, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, mentioned, with 1.2 million people infected last year and the likelihood that even more will be infected in the coming months; 9.7 million people need to be vaccinated against this horrible disease, yet only 1.1 million have had a vaccination. It is unclear how many civilians have already died in this conflict but some estimates suggest that it could be at least 50,000. We know that the number of civilian deaths increased by 164% in the three months from June to September this year. There have also been many serious violations of international humanitarian law by all sides in this conflict.
It is now a matter of the greatest urgency to end this conflict. There is a military stalemate, with very few signs that the warring parties are willing to accept a ceasefire and search for a peaceful outcome, so this is a war without much purpose. In these circumstances, there must be forceful intervention by the international community to get the participants around the table and to broker a ceasefire. To quote David Miliband speaking in his role as the head of the International Rescue Committee:
“Yemen cannot afford a slow walk at UN. Peace in Yemen requires active … diplomacy”.
I therefore welcome, as have the other speakers in the debate so far, the Foreign Secretary’s initiative earlier in the week to visit Saudi Arabia and, while there, to put pressure on the Saudi regime to agree to take steps that could lead to a ceasefire.
I ask the Minister why it has taken so long to get to this point. This was begun in March 2015, when Saudi Arabia and the UAE foolishly thought that their intervention would deal with the Houthis and put Hadi back in power, and that the civil war would end in a few weeks. How wrong they were. Their blockade of Yemeni ports, as well as their persistent bombing campaign, have done untold damage. Moreover, instead of pushing back Iran, experts have suggested that it has given Tehran an opening in Yemen that it would not otherwise have had. Can the Minister explain why the Government have been so reluctant up till now to table a UN Security Council resolution on this crisis? It is the penholder on Yemen at the UN and therefore should be at the forefront of UN action to try to stop the war.
The Government’s past reluctance to intervene suggests, as some commentators have argued, that they have more or less sided with Saudi Arabia and protected it from the heavy criticism it deserved. Why have we had to wait for the brutal murder of a Saudi journalist critical of the regime, by a hit squad sent to Turkey from Riyadh, before directly confronting the Saudi leadership on its part in the war? However great a crime the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi was, the crime of perpetuating this war, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, said, is far greater because of the loss of life and terrible suffering it is inflicting.
Will the Minister also tell the House what discussions the Government have had with the United States Government? Until very recently, they had failed to use the enormous leverage they have with the Saudis to stop the bombing and seek a political solution. I know the US has recently broken its silence and asked for a ceasefire, but could the Minister perhaps enlighten the House: what has the follow-up been since this relatively recent intervention? One attempt to get the parties together was apparently destroyed by blocking the Houthi delegation’s travel to the talks—I think it was leaving from Oman. Can we ensure that such action, apparently by the Saudi-led coalition, is not repeated? What consideration, if any, are the US Government giving to stopping their logistics assistance and intelligence support to Saudi Arabia while this conflict continues?
I expect that the Minister will emphasise the considerable commitment the Government have made to supplying aid, in particular emergency food aid, to the stricken Yemeni people. I strongly support the Government’s role in this. However, despite our participation in the large aid programme, it is little more than a sticking plaster as long as the conflict continues.
As a major supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia, our Government have a particular responsibility to push for not just a ceasefire but also a diplomatic solution. Can the Minister say whether the Government are sure that the use of UK-supplied weapons in this war is compliant with our domestic and international obligations on arms sales? Since international humanitarian law has been breached in the conflict, should we not have suspended our sales of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, as the German Government did? I end by asking what the Government’s timetable for putting down a UN Security Council resolution is. It cannot come soon enough.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend has long personal memories not only of Aden but of the Gulf and Sudan. We are extremely fortunate that he has opened this debate. Yemen has been relatively unknown here since the 1960s and, until the recent Commons debate, has had barely any attention in Parliament. I would also like to declare a family interest. My wife is a specialist on the Middle East and has given me advice on the position of different parties to the conflict.
I join this debate mainly because I am concerned at the acute humanitarian consequences. Who would not be? The Yemen war is one of the most pressing issues today. This is also a debate about Saudi Arabia, and some understanding of the present political confusion in that country is essential. As has been said, the uncertainty comes mainly from the erratic behaviour of the Crown Prince, who is the effective ruler. This man has promised reform, and there have indeed been a number of recognised changes, including benefits for women and the defanging of the religious police. But, as my noble friend said, the negatives far outweigh these: his early power-grabbing and the ill-treatment of many senior Saudis, including law-abiding women activists; his absurd decision last August to recall 8,000 Saudi students from Canada, expel the Canadian ambassador and cut economic ties, all because of tweets from Ottawa in Arabic about Saudi violations of human rights; the kidnapping and forced resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri last year; and the ramping up of the disagreement with Qatar into a regional crisis. Meanwhile, dozens of Saudi men and women are held without trial.
As a result, the Saudi king had already reasserted his authority, even before the appalling and still unexplained murder of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, an event that has rightly focused world attention on Saudi Arabia. But whether the king has given any hint of a change of policy, domestically or on the war in Yemen, remains to be seen; perhaps the Minister knows—certainly a lot of people are betting on it in relation to the war.
We are told by analysts that peace talks this time really do mean peace talks, and that Saudi Arabia is now confronting a serious deadline offered by the US and the international community. Jeremy Hunt’s famous “window” is presumably based on the premise that the royal family is now so divided by the Khashoggi affair, on top of the turmoil created by his son, that they will have to rethink their position on the war, as on most other things. I hope he is right.
One critical question is whether there is any justification for the latest advance on Hodeidah. My noble friend Lord Slim, with his considerable military experience, says that if Hodeidah was going to be taken it should have been taken months ago. The Saudi-led coalition may still believe that the end will justify the means, but the military argument falls away now we know that the advance has taken so many months, at such cost and without result. This war will not be over soon. It could drag on for years under present conditions, and once resolved, civil wars take a very long time to heal.
Meanwhile, what about the effect on civilians? The evidence is overwhelming that air strikes have had a major impact on civilians. On 9 August, there was an appalling air strike on a bus in Sa’ada, killing at least 29, possibly 40, children. The Saudi coalition, having first said that the air strike was militarily legitimate, later admitted to the Joint Incidents Assessment Team that it was unjustifiable. That is only one of many examples. On 23 August, another 22 children died escaping from Hodeidah. According to the Yemen Data Project, almost one in three air raids have been against non-military targets, and we must not forget that the Houthis are responding with Iranian SAMs and other missiles—this was part of the evidence given to the International Development Select Committee last month. In the past fortnight, over 100 people have been killed in Hodeidah. Thousands of people are currently cut off from supplies and medical aid. A government aid worker here tells me that the bigger push on Hodeidah is just making the risk of famine greater. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has already laid out the UN statistics. Altogether there are 22 million in need, 2 million pregnant women and young mothers acutely malnourished, and almost half the health facilities no longer function.
How much hangs on the special envoy? I remember Martin Griffiths from his time as overseas director at Save the Children. In fact, I travelled with him to the Far East. He is a man who likes to get things done, and I would be surprised if this situation fazed him, although it must be one of the most intractable he has ever faced. However, it seems that, without the Houthis at the table, his mission is permanently delayed. He is due to report to the Security Council.
The UK has a special responsibility in this war, and I know that the FCO has pulled the stops out in supporting the peace process up to now. I also recognise that the UK has been a generous donor, as indeed has Saudi Arabia, as one would expect. However, as the UN’s Mark Lowcock pointed out on 30 October, Yemen is on the verge of a serious catastrophe and no one can deny that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, said, we should be making more of an effort. A group of diplomats and experts has written to the Foreign Secretary as follows:
“We urge HMG to … consider where Yemen’s calamity is leading—a crippled economy, destitution, political instability and terrorism … The lack of governance and rampant corruption that have bedevilled Yemen … have been major drivers of the resentments fuelling this war”.
Can the Minister anticipate the Foreign Office reply, because the situation is already critical? The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, put a lot of questions to the Minister, which I fully support.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is high time this House had the opportunity to debate the dramatically appalling situation in Yemen. For that opportunity, I thank my noble friend Lord Luce.
The UK may not be directly a party to the conflict there but we are very much involved—as a supporter of Saudi Arabia, as a supplier of some of the equipment and munitions being used in the fighting, as a former colonial power of part of that country, and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, on whose agenda the question of Yemen is a constant reproach.
I have no doubt the Minister will have a good deal to say about the efforts that the Government are making to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population—the threat of mass starvation and the cholera epidemic, as others have mentioned, among the appalling woes that afflict this country—and those efforts deserve praise. They are substantial but they are both inadequate and, in some senses, broadly irrelevant as long as the underlying cause of the suffering of the people of Yemen—the war, of course—is not being effectively addressed. It is hard to say that the international community, or the British Government, as an important player in the international community, have yet found means to address those problems—the causes of war—effectively.
The Government seem quite proud of the fact that on the UN Security Council Britain is known as the penholder on the question of Yemen. In the five years that I was at the United Nations I never heard that concept referred to—it did not exist—although I drafted rather a large number of the resolutions of the Security Council. However, if the hand which holds the pen remains paralysed, as it has done for many months, what on earth is the use of it?
What are we doing in New York to inject a sense of urgency into the discussion of Yemen? I am not suggesting that we should dash down to the Security Council and seek to pass some empty words, but if we were moving more purposefully towards a new basis for seeking peace in Yemen, endorsed by the Security Council, it would get the attention of all the parties to the conflict. So I should like the Minister to tell us why this paralysis in the penhand is continuing.
The recent statements by the US Secretaries of State and Defence calling for a cessation of hostilities within 30 days and a resumption of the peace process—calls which were echoed, I am glad to say, by the Foreign Secretary—are welcome, but why do we have to wait for the Americans to say this before we let out a single cheep?
What has been the reaction of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates to those calls for a resumption of the peace process? Does it really make sense, as the Secretary for Defence in the United States said, to ask one party to the dispute, the Houthis, to take the first step before the other party is asked to do anything? What consequences would there be for our relations with Saudi Arabia if it does not continue to respond positively to the US and UK calls for a ceasefire after initially doing so? I understood from the Foreign Secretary giving evidence to your Lordships’ International Relations Committee today that it has responded positively in the past few days.
Nearly two years ago, your Lordships’ International Relations Committee produced a report on the Middle East. One of our findings was that we needed to be prepared to take rather more robust action in our relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is the relationship of a friend and ally, if we were to get its attention. We do not suggest, as many have done, the absolute cessation of all military supplies to Saudi Arabia. That would be a huge step. It may be necessary but, as I say, it would be a huge step. We suggested that the Government should be prepared to warn Saudi Arabia that if the weapons that we provide are misused or are used in attacks on civilians, there would have to be suspensions of some of our supplies. I really think we have been a little inert in all of this.
Of course, other outside powers are involved, as well as Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, most obviously Iran, with whom our US allies have no contact at all and against whom they have just stepped up their unilateral economic sanctions. But we speak to and have diplomatic relations with Iran and we are not, quite rightly, applying those sanctions. We therefore have a good basis on which to have a dialogue. Last week, the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister and the senior Iranian official who handles relations with Yemen were in London. How did they respond to the calls for a cessation of hostilities? What transpired from their contacts with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, if indeed they took place? Can the Minister say something about that? I wonder whether they, too, would be prepared to advise their Yemeni partners and allies, the Yemeni Houthis, to come to the conference table and to respond positively to the efforts of the UN Secretary-General’s representative, Martin Griffiths? That will be an important factor in this rather complex situation.
There are more questions than answers in what all those who have participated in this short debate have said, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to at least some of them. What we cannot afford to do any longer is to stand by and wring our hands as things go from bad to worse.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for introducing the debate. Of the many press reports on recent events in Turkey, one that I found shocking was the New York Times report covering the work of Dr Mekkia Mahdi in a northern Yemen health clinic, who was quoted as saying: “We’re surprised the Khashoggi case is getting so much attention while millions of Yemeni children are suffering and nobody gives a damn about them”. According to the reporters, she said those words while sitting by the bed of a seven year-old girl named Amal Hussain, who was severely emaciated. Sadly, as many noble Lords will know, Amal died two weeks ago, with her mother Mariam fearing that her other children would suffer the same fate.
We know, and we have heard it in today’s debate, that for every child like Amal, there are millions more children with stories just like hers and thousands of others whose stories ended when the air strikes came, or when they picked up a cluster bomb, or when the Houthis put a rifle in their hands. The children of Yemen have a right to demand more than sympathy and tears. They are calling out for action. There is no possible military solution without unthinkable human cost for Yemen’s civilians, the innocent people who ask no more than to be allowed to live their lives. Of course, Jeremy Hunt expressed similar sentiments 10 days ago when he said:
“For too long in the Yemen conflict, both sides have believed a military solution is possible, with catastrophic consequences for the people”.
He also confirmed that the UK has been discussing with UN Security Council partners what more the council can do to address the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and step up support for the work of the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that we have stressed to our Security Council partners—in particular, the United States—that for any ceasefire proposals and subsequent peace deal to be sustainable, all parties must be properly involved. We cannot have a ceasefire that will simply lead to failure.
As the Minister has said before, in the search for a political solution there is a special responsibility on the United Kingdom as the penholder on Yemen at the Security Council. However, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the UK has ducked that responsibility for two years by sitting on a draft resolution. Now is the time to bring it forward. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, the shocking murder of Jamal Khashoggi has brought into sharp focus the current Government of Saudi Arabia’s apparent disregard for human rights, the rule of law and the sanctity of human life.
On 23 October, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, Mark Lowcock, set out to the Security Council the need for urgent action in five areas: a cessation of hostilities in and around all the infrastructure and facilities on which the aid operation and commercial importers rely; protection of the supply of food and essential goods across the country; a larger and faster injection of foreign exchange into the economy through the Central Bank, along with expediting credit for traders and paying pensioners and civil servants; increased funding and support for the humanitarian operation; and a call on the belligerents to seize this moment to engage fully and openly with the special envoy to end the conflict.
In addition to those areas, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that other vital issues will be considered in any draft resolution. In this Chamber, I have repeatedly raised the need for accountability for war crimes and human rights violations. A new resolution should demand that all parties to the conflict abide by the laws of war, including prohibitions on attacks that target civilians and civilian objects, that do not discriminate between civilians and military objectives, and that cause civilian loss disproportionate to the expected military benefit.
I want to pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. A new resolution should specifically mention the Saudi-led coalition by name; vague appeals to “all parties” will not have the required impact on Riyadh and the regime there. It should also specifically address arms by calling for the cessation of weapons transfer to any party where there is a clear risk that they will commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law. As noble Lords have said, the time for action is now. The people of Yemen cannot wait any longer.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It is a very poignant end to the day. Indeed, I was reminded of that as I was leaving the Foreign Office by a UNICEF advert focusing on the grave humanitarian situation in Yemen. As a father and a human being, I cannot help but be moved into ensuring that we do our part, both politically and on the humanitarian front. I therefore join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for tabling this debate. I appreciate the keen personal interest that he has taken in the conflict, based also on his family ties to the country. Before responding to some of the specific questions raised, I want to share the sentiment expressed by all noble Lords that we have sat back and let this conflict go on for far too long. The need is to act. I hope that through some of the responses that I give today I will provide noble Lords with assurance in that respect.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luce, and other noble Lords for focusing on the humanitarian support that the UK Government have provided—the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned it, as did my noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who spoke from the great experience of his time at the United Nations.
We all acknowledge that what is unfolding in Yemen is now the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. The United Nations estimates that almost 80% of the population are in need of humanitarian assistance, including nearly 8.5 million people at risk of starvation. Last year, there were 1 million suspected cases of cholera, the largest outbreak in modern history—several noble Lords alluded to that.
I assure noble Lords, as several of them have acknowledged, that the UK is at the forefront of the response. Since 2015, we have provided more than £570 million in bilateral humanitarian support, including an additional £170 million this financial year, as we announced in April, to meet the immediate food needs of more than 2.5 million Yemenis.
I say in answer to a specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Luce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that UK aid has supported Yemen’s first ever cholera vaccination campaign. It was completed in May and helped to protect more than 450,000 men, women and children from that deadly disease. In August, we launched a further vaccination campaign around Hodeidah and other parts of Yemen aimed at more than 500,000 people.
As many noble Lords have acknowledged, the conflict has been led by the Saudi coalition in Yemen. However, we should also recognise that the conflict is the result of a Houthi insurgency which overthrew Yemen’s legitimate Government. The coalition became involved at the request of President Hadi, who had been forced to flee. As noble Lords have identified, Saudi Arabia has been deeply involved in the conflict, but we recognise its right to protect its national security from attacks, including missiles launched from Houthi bases at Saudi Arabia.
However, I acknowledge and respect the concerns expressed by noble Lords about violations of international humanitarian law, points on which were raised rightly by my noble friend Lady Helic among others. We are aware of such violations and take them very seriously. In Houthi-controlled Yemen, we also have deep concerns about aid not being allowed through to those in dire need, and we have pressed for improvements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked about US intelligence sharing with Saudi Arabia. I am sure that she will accept that that is a matter for the United States and not directly for the United Kingdom. On her specific questions about UK arms exports, I am aware that the European partners have halted issuing licences. We remain confident that our assessment of licences is consistent with the current criteria. As the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will be aware, export licences are assessed against consolidated EU and national criteria. Our key test for exporting to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is whether there is a clear risk that the export might be used in serious contravention of international humanitarian law. We continue to focus on that issue. I assure the noble Baroness that the MoD monitors allegations of violations of international humanitarian law arising from coalition airstrikes. The information gathered is used to form an overall view on its approach and attitude to international humanitarian law.
Saudi Arabia has now publicly acknowledged that it investigates reports of alleged violations of international humanitarian law through the joint incidents assessment team and that it acts on lessons learned. To date, the joint incidents assessment team has issued more than 90 statements from its investigations. I assure noble Lords that our test for our continued defence exports in relation to international humanitarian law is whether there is a clear risk that that a licence might be used to commit a serious violation. I have listened very carefully to the concerns raised during this debate and I assure noble Lords that we will keep this situation under careful and continual review.
My noble friend Lady Helic raised the issue of the targeting chain within Saudi Arabia. The UK’s role in the Saudi targeting chain is limited to providing advice, information and assistance to help Saudi Arabia respond to the threat from Houthi missiles. I hope my noble friend recognises the limits of what I can say in that respect, but this is a very limited form of support that we extend to Saudi Arabia.
There seems little doubt that the longer the conflict goes on, as several noble Lords acknowledged, the more appalling the humanitarian situation becomes. Noble Lords have rightly said that peace talks must be the top priority: there can be no military solution to this conflict. That point was made very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. The Yemeni parties must also engage constructively and in good faith to overcome obstacles and find a political solution: that is the only way to end the conflict, bring long-term stability to Yemen and address the humanitarian crisis. I assure noble Lords that the United Kingdom has played, and continues to play, a leading role in diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution. We have provided, for example, £1.68 million to the office of the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths, to bolster his capacity to facilitate the peace process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, talked about recent efforts. The UK has brought together the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and the UN to find a peaceful, lasting solution to the conflict. The most recent meeting of the quad was on 27 September at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke of the UK’s position as a pen-holder. The UK proposed and co-ordinated a UN Security Council presidential statement, which I am sure that noble Lords recognise and which was agreed on 15 March 2018. The statement builds on a previous text from June of last year in its expression of deep concern about the humanitarian situation in Yemen. It calls for all parties—a point made by several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Collins—to agree steps towards a ceasefire. It welcomes the new UN special envoy and recognises the humanitarian imperative, calling for a vaccination programme, which I alluded to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked about our discussions with the United States on the ceasefire. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Secretary of State Pompeo about Yemen and specifically raised these issues last week. I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that UK and US officials are working very closely together in New York on further action we will take at the Security Council. I assure noble Lords that we strongly support special envoy Martin Griffiths’ extensive efforts, including in trying to bring together all representatives, including the Yemeni Government and the Houthis, for consultations in Geneva in September. The UN, the UK and other states tried very hard to address the Houthis’ concerns but their delegation did not attend.
I fully accept that more needs to be done to address the catastrophic consequences for the Yemeni people. Now, for the first time, there appears to be a window, as noble Lords acknowledged. I am sure that all noble Lords welcome the recent intervention by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary when he visited the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia on Monday to build support in the UN Security Council to bolster the UN-led process—indeed, I was in the UAE at that time. This followed his meeting with UN special envoy Martin Griffiths last month. The Foreign Secretary also had useful discussions in Saudi Arabia and in the UAE. We welcome the recent announcements, because of his intervention and efforts, and the Saudi assurances on the transportation of Houthi wounded from Yemen. I believe that there are 50 being taken out who require specific medical attention. This was a precondition for Houthi attendance at the next round of talks in Stockholm and we continue to urge all parties to engage with UN special envoy Martin Griffiths on the proposed political talks in Stockholm later this month. Let me assure the noble Lord that we will continue to work specifically on that at the UN Security Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about the visit of Yemeni personnel last week. If I may, I will write to him in that respect. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also asked about the UK’s response to the letter from the Yemen Safe Passage Group. Briefly, in response we continue to call on all sides, including the Houthis, to allow unhindered humanitarian and commercial access in and throughout Yemen, through the UN Security Council and direct messaging to the parties. We have successfully lobbied for the Government of Yemen to lift decree 75, which has slowed the import of food into the country. I am specifically pleased about the steps we have taken around Hodeidah. While the ceasefire is fragile there, it continues to show dividends in access to fuel and humanitarian aid.
In thanking all noble Lords—and as the Minister for the UN—let me end on a point about the UN Security Council. We are progressing constructively with all partners at the UN in New York. As the Prime Minister herself made clear on 31 October, a Yemen-wide ceasefire will have an effect on the ground only if it is backed by a political deal, which we all recognise, between all parties. A cessation of hostilities is an essential first step towards alleviating the suffering of the Yemeni people. This must be uppermost in everyone’s minds as we seek to put in place a longer-term solution. I am sure that we will return to this issue. Let me assure noble Lords that I will seek to update them on the initiatives and progress we are making on the Security Council, and that the UK will continue to influence the push for a collaborative approach to finding a lasting and political solution in our bilateral engagement with all parties and through our efforts at the UN in New York.