House of Commons
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 4 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, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government’s investment in sport is delivered through Sport England, which has invested £9 million in sport and physical activity in Cornwall since 2013, including £3 million for sports facilities.
Derek Thomas
Dare I say, Mr Speaker, that your tie today is a fine one?
The Minister will be aware that I have been working with stakeholders in Cornwall for 10 years now to deliver a stadium for Cornwall. A stadium is not only about sport, although we should celebrate Cornish sport, it is also about the health and wellbeing of children and adults right across the county of Cornwall. We have been working hard and we are nearly there with the money; what more can the Treasury do to deliver on this fantastic opportunity?
Robert Jenrick
I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for a new stadium for Cornwall since even before he was elected. At his instigation, I met the Cornwall Council officer responsible for the project last week. With the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, we will continue to work closely with partners in Cornwall and Sport England to seek a means to bring this exciting project to a successful conclusion. We appreciate that, as the most remote team on the mainland, the Cornish Pirates deserve a fitting home for the future.
Mr Speaker
Any supplementary question does need to be about Cornwall, not about Devon.
Luke Pollard
Plymouth Argyle has lots of supporters in Plymouth, but is also the premier choice for many Cornish supporters, too. There is concern about the lack of grassroots sports pitches in Devon, Plymouth and Cornwall. Will the Minister set out how the Treasury is going to fund local government—especially in the absence of a local government settlement—to support the development of grassroots football, especially through the provision of changing rooms for not only boys and men but women and girls?
Robert Jenrick
That was very tenuous. Once a new stadium has been built in Truro, perhaps people will not need to go to Plymouth to support Argyle. We are supporting grassroots sports in several ways—for example, the soft drinks industry levy has ensured that more than £500 million of additional funding has gone into school sport and into the health and wellbeing schemes that are delivered, along with breakfast clubs, in our primary schools.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
Budget 2018 announced our plan for the high street, which provides £1.5 billion of support to fund local areas as they make their high streets fit for the future. The plan includes a £675 million future high streets fund, planning reforms, a high streets taskforce, support for community assets and a cut by a third to the business rates bills of independent retailers for two years from April 2019, saving businesses almost £900 million.
Maria Caulfield
Although I welcome the measures that the Chancellor just mentioned—they are helping high streets greatly—the business rates system is currently not working for high streets. Will the Chancellor therefore consider a type of transaction tax that would level the playing field between online businesses and those based on premises, and also enable businesses such as Starbucks and Amazon to start to pay their fair share of tax?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend makes a point that has been raised on many occasions. There is concern about the way the business rates system works. In 2016, we conducted a fundamental review of business rates that agreed that property-based taxes were easy to collect, difficult to avoid and stable. There was no consensus around any replacement for business rates. My hon. Friend will know that separately the Government announced in the Budget a digital services tax to ensure that digital businesses pay tax that reflects the value that they derive from UK users.
Peter Heaton-Jones
Will the Chancellor join me in congratulating Barnstaple, where the high street has bucked the national trend? We have fewer vacant premises and increasing footfall. Will the Government continue to support retailers, especially the smaller independent businesses that are the backbone of our economy?
Mr Hammond
Yes, I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Barnstaple on the success of its high street. Of course, there are many successful high streets throughout the United Kingdom, even at a time when the high street overall is under pressure. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that Devon’s success does not stop at the high street; it has seen a wider economic achievement, with unemployment across Devon down by no less than 57% since 2010 and down by 25% over the past year.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
A buoyant high street is absolutely vital for communities such as mine in Batley and Spen. The Treasury Committee report released today suggests that northern towns are more exposed to Brexit trade-related risks than others. With that in mind, will the Minister tell us what has been put in place to support communities such as mine that will be hardest hit post Brexit?
Mr Hammond
The answer, of course, is to ensure that we leave the European Union in a way that supports our economy across the United Kingdom. That means a negotiated deal that allows us to have a smooth exit and retain a close trading partnership with our European neighbours in the future.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Some 51,000 shops on the UK’s high streets closed in the past year. Local businesses in even successful places such as Kendal and Windermere struggle because they are forced to pay huge taxes while mega-online retailers get away with paying next to no tax at all. Will the Chancellor give a well-deserved Christmas present to the high street by halving business rates there paid for by taxing internet firms on the basis of their turnover, not just their profits?
Mr Hammond
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place for the Budget, but I did in fact announce a digital services tax based on turnover. I also announced a reduction of one third in the business rates for independent retailers. I am very happy to have a meeting with him and explain the changes in detail.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) for mentioning the Treasury Committee report published this morning. The Treasury Committee is about more than Brexit, as I hope this House is too, and next week we will be holding a joint Committee session with the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on business rates. I am sure that the Financial Secretary is looking forward to his evidence session greatly.
Nicky Morgan
I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding.
Business rates are an issue for retailers, and there are some simple things that could be changed now. Does the Chancellor agree, for example, that, for many retailers, their busiest period is Christmas when they could perhaps agree to pay more in business rates and then pay less in periods when they are less busy, so, overall, the same amount is paid, but there is flexibility in payment?
Mr Hammond
If my right hon. Friend is asking whether there is anything that local authorities can do to help with the cash-flow challenges of seasonally based businesses, I am very happy to take that away and look at it and see whether there is anything that we can do to help in that way. The challenge, of course, is that business rates raise £25 billion a year and are a vital part of our overall tax system. If we are to change them, we must find a sustainable way of replacing them.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor does not like it when I use what he calls my “synthetic passion”, so, very quietly, may I beg him to take very seriously indeed where we are as a nation? It looks like we are heading for financial meltdown: people are losing their confidence in this country—[Interruption.] People are losing their confidence. My high street retailers—the big people and the small people—have their heads in their hands, and householders see a real likelihood of a 30% drop in their home value. Will he do something to stop this madness?
Mr Hammond
There are a couple of points there. First, I should just say to the hon. Gentleman that I was actually congratulating him the other day on his display of synthetic anger, which is one of the best in the House. On the wider point, the high street is facing challenges because of the uptake of online retailing across the UK at a faster rate than in any other large economy. That means that our high streets will have to adapt. The Government cannot save the high street from the need to change. What they can do is support it as it goes through that process of change.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Mr Hammond
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary is the expert on this matter and he might find a meeting with him more fruitful, but either one of us is very happy to meet him.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Many of the shops and firms located on the high street are represented by the Federation of Small Businesses. Has the Chancellor seen what the FSB has said about the current Brexit position? Its chair has said:
“Planning ahead has now become impossible for a lot of firms as we simply don’t know what environment we’ll be faced with in little more than 100 days’ time…the economic warning signs are now flashing red.”
The Chancellor knew full well in our debate last week that the Prime Minister’s deal was not going to receive the support of the House. Is it not only right that he is straight with her by telling her that businesses cannot face any more uncertainty and that a decision on the deal cannot be delayed and put off until late January, as some around her are suggesting?
Mr Hammond
I would be the first to agree that businesses need an end to uncertainty and clarity about the future, but frankly I think that the shadow Chancellor is probably the last person who should give us that lecture, because his policy agenda has been designed to create uncertainty and a lack of clarity for business in the future. What the Prime Minister is doing—absolutely rightly—is making a last attempt to see whether she can get further concessions from our partners in the European Union, which is clearly the desire of this House. She will come back and report to the House when she has done so.
John McDonnell
Both sides of the House have to address the seriousness of the situation we face. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has said:
“Firms are looking on with utter dismay at the ongoing saga in Westminster”.
Today’s Treasury Committee report is devastating in its criticisms of the way in which the Government have sought to assess options not even on the table. A month ago, the Chancellor committed his support to a deal that guaranteed frictionless trade with the EU. Will he now be absolutely straight with the Prime Minister and tell her that unless she comes back with a deal that does fulfil his promise of frictionless trade, it will not succeed in protecting our economy and could not be supported?
Mr Hammond
The right hon. Gentleman can practise his synthetic concern at the Dispatch Box, but the remedy lies in his hands. There is a deal on the table that will end the uncertainty and allow this country to move on, and our polling shows that that is exactly what the British people want. All he has to do is get behind it, vote for the Prime Minister’s deal and we can all move on.
Mr Speaker
I say very gently to the Chancellor, to whom I have been listening with great care, that it is quite difficult to vote for something if there is not a vote. I am only trying to help him; it is a point that is so blindingly obvious that I am surprised that I have to state it, but manifestly I do.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
Spending on the most vulnerable children has increased by over £1.5 billion since 2010. Thanks to our increased investment in childcare, the overall early years and children’s services budget has increased to £12.7 billion this year.
Bambos Charalambous
Will the Minister please acknowledge that she is simply putting a sticking plaster on the crisis in children’s social care? It is essential that children’s social care gets an extra £3 billion by 2025, and the Chancellor’s Budget commitment is less than 3% of the way there. Will the Minister admit that we are not on track to meet this target?
Elizabeth Truss
It is certainly the case that we are seeing rising demand for children’s services, but the important thing is that we help children’s services departments intervene early. We are rolling out a pilot programme this year to adopt models like that used in North Yorkshire that has reduced the number of children going into care, the number being arrested and the number ending up in accident and emergency, so it is important that we spend the money in the right way.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Me and my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group for children were delighted by the extra money that was found for children’s services in the Budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we continue to distribute extra funds fairly across all regions of the UK?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We also need to make sure that we are sharing the best practice of those authorities that are successfully helping to keep children out of care. We are also using the initiative of the children’s Minister to ensure that we are using independent school facilities better and helping with mental health problems. We need to do all those things.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Education to discuss school and FE funding issues. We have protected the base rate of funding for 16 to 17-year-olds between 2015 and 2020.
Elizabeth Truss
What is important is that we are achieving better results for 16 to 18-year-olds. We are seeing more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university and improvements in the quality of apprenticeships that are being taken up by young people. We are also putting extra money into the new T-levels, which are due to improve technical education.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Our FE colleges are great poverty-fighting institutions that provide vital ladders of opportunity for our constituents. Given that school pay rises have been fully funded and FE has only had 0.1%, is there not a case for parity of esteem for teachers in FE colleges?
Elizabeth Truss
It was indeed very good that we were able to give teachers, particularly those on the lowest wages, a 3.5% pay rise this year—the highest pay rise seen for a decade. FE colleges are set up differently. They are independent institutions that have the wherewithal to change the pay for lecturers who work within them.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
All public spending proposals, including those for major infrastructure projects, are appraised against five key considerations: the strategic case for change, the net value to society of the intervention, the affordability of the proposal, the robustness of delivery plans, and whether a realistic commercial deal can be struck to deliver the proposal. As I announced in the Budget, there will be a zero-based review of capital spending at the spending review next year.
Priti Patel
The Chancellor will know that Essex is a gateway for infrastructure and trade from around the world, but he will also know that we sorely lack major infrastructure investment across the county, despite having some very compelling business cases. What will he do to ensure that we can get the investment in for the A12, the A120, and the great eastern main line?
Mr Hammond
First, I acknowledge my right hon. Friend’s tireless work in campaigning to improve infrastructure and boost productivity in the Essex region, including her chairing of the Great Eastern Mainline Taskforce. We expect about £47.9 billion to be spent on the railway nationally between 2019 and 2024. I very much look forward to hearing the outcome of the Great Eastern Mainline Taskforce study. Regarding the A120, the Government are carefully considering Essex County Council’s proposals for a new dual carriageway to ensure that a robust plan is ready should that project secure funding in RIS 2—the second road investment strategy.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
“State of the North 2018”, a report published by the Institute for Public Policy Research North earlier this month, highlighted the fact that public spending in the north of England fell by £6.3 billion since 2009-10 while spending in the south-east and the south-west was up by £3.2 million in the same period. Does this not demonstrate that the northern powerhouse is nothing but a vacuous slogan? What does the Chancellor assess will be the infrastructure funding available once we leave the EU?
Mr Hammond
We have had this one before. The Institute for Public Policy Research consistently publishes these figures and they are consistently wrong. I would urge the hon. Lady to look at the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s figure. The problem with the IPPR is that it needs also to look at central Government funding to the regions. When we look at central Government funding to the regions, we will see a very different picture.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
One of the most important things for long-term infrastructure spending is knowing what the long-term programmes are going to be. These are not projects that can be put together in a year or two years. What reassurance can the Chancellor give us that he is making sufficient capital available so that the big infrastructure companies involved in our roads, railways and power operations have the knowledge that those funds are going to be available?
Mr Hammond
We are doing two things. First, we are investing more public capital than ever before under the previous Labour Government, but we have also put in place the National Infrastructure Commission to develop a transparent pipeline of projects both publicly and privately funded so that investors in infrastructure projects can have that visibility of future projects available.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
While accepting that it is not a simple matter, the criteria used tend to favour infrastructure development in the south, rather than the north. What more can the Government do to support major infrastructure development, particularly when it comes to transport, in the north of England?
Mr Hammond
I reject the hon. Gentleman’s accusation. The methodologies we use are designed to be fair and equitable in the distribution of infrastructure funding, but if he would like to meet me and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, I am happy to go through the whole issue. We are as concerned as he is to make sure that infrastructure investment decisions are made on a transparent and equitable basis.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is Government policy to explore options for the sale of corporate and financial assets where there is no longer a policy reason to retain them and value for money can be secured for taxpayers. All asset sales are subject to a rigorous value-for-money assessment before they can go ahead.
Meg Hillier
In the Government’s pursuit of paying down the debt, they are at risk of selling off assets that could be of benefit to the public in the long term. Although the Economic Secretary talks about the modelling, we know from our work on the Public Accounts Committee that the model is very debatable in exactly what the benefit and disbenefit will be to the public in the long term. Will he commit to assessing every upcoming sale rigorously and making sure that the Treasury is learning, so that it is not selling off the family silver and taking things away from the British public that belong to them?
John Glen
I read the report published by the hon. Lady’s Committee, and I recognise the need for a rigorous value-for-money assessment of every sale. That is why, with respect to student loans, which was the subject of the Committee’s last report, I was pleased that the NAO said that
“the sale achieved prices at the upper end of these estimates”
and that
“the transaction…achieved value for money.”
The Government will continue to be guided by that in every transaction they undertake.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
Since 2010, the UK has seen a larger fall in youth unemployment than Germany, France and Italy combined. Today’s employment figures show that the youth unemployment rate is down to a record low, with the number having nearly halved since 2010.
Michael Fabricant
It seems the message is simple: it is better to grow up in Lichfield than, say, Limoges or Lyon—does my right hon. Friend agree? If youth unemployment has fallen by 50% since 2010, how will she maintain that?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I am sure it is nothing but fun growing up in Lichfield, with him as the local Member of Parliament. The reason we have such low youth unemployment is that we have expanded the number of apprenticeships, reformed employment to make it easier to take on staff, and reformed our welfare system to make sure that it always pays to go into work.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The evidence is that younger people are moving out of towns such as Wrexham, which I represent, and being dragged into the south-east of England and the south-east of Wales, because the opportunities for younger people in creative and dynamic industries are not being created in towns. What are the Government doing to address that?
Elizabeth Truss
I think it is good if young people have the opportunity to work and study across the country, and we should not say that people have to be kept in their place, as we often hear from the Labour party. By expanding broadband and roads and putting more money into infrastructure, we are making sure that every town in Britain can succeed.
Mr Speaker
It is perfectly open to the hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) to take part in the exchanges on this question, to which their own rather later inquiries are entirely relevant.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
We are seeing a growing number of young people taking up high-quality apprenticeships, which is fantastic news. We were able at the Budget to improve flexibility, so that it is easier for small and medium-sized enterprises and companies in the supply chain to take on apprentices.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. It is surprising that we have heard nothing from Labour Members about today’s fantastic employment figures and record wage growth—the highest we have seen for a decade. The reason is the policies that this Government have pursued. We have the second highest youth employment rate in the G7, and we have been one of the fastest improvers.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Youth unemployment in the United Kingdom is sitting at about 3% below the equivalent figure for the rest of the European Union. The Chief Secretary puts that down to sound management of the UK economy. By a very similar margin, youth unemployment in Scotland is consistently lower than the equivalent figure for the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely that must mean that young people in Scotland have a better chance of gainful employment under a Scottish National party Government than they would if Ruth Davidson were First Minister.
Elizabeth Truss
I celebrate when the UK economy is doing well and I celebrate when the Scottish economy is doing well. I was recently in Scotland meeting the Scottish Finance Minister and talking about measures to improve growth. What I think will be interesting is to see, in tomorrow’s Scottish budget, whether the Scottish Government match the tax cuts that we have made across the rest of the UK—or will Scottish taxpayers end up paying more?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Resolution Foundation has found that millennials’ weekly earnings are less than those of the previous generation at the same age, which is unprecedented. That is due to more insecure and low-paid jobs, and less job mobility. As well as stronger workers’ rights, halting the decline in business investment would help, but that needs business confidence. Will the Chief Secretary tell me why her Government are listening only to the European Research Group, not to the voice of business when it says that we need a permanent customs union?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady obviously has not seen today’s wages figures, which show that real pay grew by 0.8%, and we are seeing more and more young people getting into work.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government are committed to ensuring that working people can keep more of what they earn. At Budget 2018, I announced that the Government will increase the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 from April 2019, delivering on our manifesto promise one year early. This is a tax cut for 32 million people that will save a typical basic rate taxpayer a further £130 a year in tax. In the north-west and Merseyside, 196,000 of the lowest paid will have been taken out of income tax since 2015, leaving more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. The typical basic rate taxpayer across the UK will pay £1,205 less in 2019 than he or she did in 2010.
Antoinette Sandbach
Some 37,000 constituents in Eddisbury have had an income tax cut and 738 pay no tax at all, but many will pay another tax on their income, which is national insurance. What steps is the Chancellor taking to reduce the burden of national insurance on the lowest paid?
Mr Hammond
The Government do consider national insurance contributions and income tax together to ensure an overall progressive tax system in which those earning the most pay the most. However, when we are looking at national insurance thresholds, it is important for us to remember that national insurance payments provide access to social security benefits: they build individuals’ entitlements to contributory benefits, including the state pension, as well as helping to fund the NHS. It is probably worth my mentioning that on average, in 2019-20, households in the lowest income decile will receive over £4 in public spending for every £1 they pay in tax.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Chancellor bear the whole issue of national insurance in mind, both now and when it comes to his Budget, in that people on low wages, who understand they will begin to pay national insurance much earlier than they pay tax, should retain more of their hard-earned money in net terms?
Mr Hammond
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I repeat what I have just said. We have to remember that people coming into national insurance at a lower rate also means people coming into entitlement to contributory benefits at that rate. We have a contributory principle in our benefits system, and national insurance is the key to it.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
When income tax was first introduced, it was supposed to be temporary. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer update us on his plans finally to get rid of this tax, or will it, like the backstop, be with us for the next 200 years?
Mr Hammond
When I was in Brussels the other day, I was reliably informed that the kingdom of Belgium was originally intended to be a temporary construct, but it still seems to be with us. The world has moved on since the Napoleonic wars, as my hon. Friend may or may not celebrate, and I have to tell him that the Government have no plans to abolish income tax.
Mr Speaker
None the less, we are better informed as a result of what the Chancellor has just told us, on two points: Belgium and then the subsequent point. We are grateful to him for that.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The lowest paid members of the armed forces stationed in Scotland pay less in tax than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK, so why will the Chancellor not stand up for the lowest paid members of the armed forces, either by giving them a tax cut to match their counterparts in Scotland or by giving them a proper pay rise?
Mr Hammond
My understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has put in place special measures to ensure that those members of the armed forces who are disadvantaged by Scotland’s higher income tax rates are compensated, in order to avoid a situation where they regard postings to Scotland as hardship postings.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The Government are committed to delivering a deal that works for the whole of the United Kingdom—for every country and region within it, including Scotland—and Treasury Ministers of course have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland on just these matters.
Alison Thewliss
The Fraser of Allander Institute reports today that many firms are still ill prepared for a no-deal Brexit, that the worst-case scenario is the equivalent of making 100,000 people in Scotland unemployed, and that we face a recession double the size of that which Scotland experienced in the crash. Does the Minister not agree that the only way out of this Government shambles is to accept that staying in the single market and the customs union is the best compromise we can get?
Mel Stride
The best deal for the country, and indeed for Scotland, is the one that the Prime Minister has brought forward, and which she is now looking at with our European partners in Brussels: one that sees a free trade area right at the heart of our arrangements; that has no tariffs between ourselves and the EU27; that gives us control of our borders; that makes sure we put an end to sending vast sums of money to the European Union; that gives us control of our laws; and that enables us to conduct our own international trade affairs.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that what is of equal importance are the economic relationships within the UK, and that initiatives such as the borderlands growth initiative are a priority for the people of the borderlands region?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why in the last Budget, Scotland benefited from £950 million in additional Barnett funding, and why we are investing £1 billion in up to six new city deals, including in the borderlands area—some of those deals have been concluded and some are under discussion.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
One of the many flaws in the Government’s analysis of the impact of Brexit on the regions and nations of the UK is that they did not tell us precisely what the GDP reduction would be compared with the status quo. Will the Minister now correct that and tell us how much worse off in GDP terms Scotland will be if we pursue the Brexit deal compared with the present day?
Mel Stride
These are estimates, of course, not forecasts. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there would be no impact on output in Scotland in the long term—15 years from the end of the implementation period—if we compare the White Paper deal with the situation as it stands today.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
According to the Scottish Government’s own website, 61% of Scottish exports come to the rest of the UK and only 17% go to the European Union. Does the Minister therefore agree that Scotland’s economic interests are best served by remaining part of the United Kingdom?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Scottish National party would like the country to stay in the EU, which would, for example, severely disadvantage the Scottish fishing industry. We have negotiated a very advantageous situation in terms of having control of our fishing as an independent coastal state. The point my hon. Friend makes is also entirely right: if Scotland were to be independent there would be frictions at the border between ourselves and Scotland, which would not assist with trade.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On 19 November, the Exchequer Secretary told us that the Government’s analysis would contain a comparison between the Prime Minister’s deal and the status quo, and that it would contain insight from external stakeholders. It contains neither of those things. The Treasury Committee this morning produced a report that expresses disappointment that the Prime Minister’s deal has not been analysed. Yesterday, businesses lost 2% of their value. UK firms have no sympathy for a UK Government who are feart to put their shoddy deal before the House. Will the Chancellor stand by the words he said previously that
“remaining in the European Union would be a better outcome for the economy”?
Will he find some backbone and make that case in Parliament?
Mel Stride
The cross-government departmental analysis shows clearly that the outcome of no deal would see the United Kingdom disadvantaged by 8% of GDP compared with the deal negotiated at the moment in the withdrawal agreement. The best option identified in the analysis is the current deal.
Kirsty Blackman
The analysis does not model the deal. That is what the Treasury Committee says and that is what we are saying. It models Chequers; it does not model the Prime Minister’s deal. The Minister cannot stand there and make that case to the House.
Because the Prime Minister pulled the vote this week, businesses are accelerating their contingency no-deal Brexit plans. They are heightening their preparations for an emergency no deal. The legacy of this Government will be lost investment, lost growth and lost jobs. Surely the Chancellor cannot think it is acceptable that, just to save the Prime Minister’s job, hundreds of other people have to lose theirs?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady suggests that the analysis does not model the White Paper deal. It does exactly that, but it does it in terms of the future relationship and the political declaration which, as she will know, is a range of potential outcomes—so that is entirely what the analysis does. As I say, what it shows is that the deal we have negotiated with the European Union is the best deal available for the things that she and I hold dear: growth across our economy, growth in Scotland, jobs in Scotland and even lower unemployment in Scotland. The Scottish National party should now row in behind this deal to make sure that we do the best for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Scotland, just like the rest of the UK, has a substantial and successful financial services sector that is heavily dependent on market access to the EU. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that under the terms of the Government’s Brexit deal the financial sector gets no greater degree of market access than the equivalence arrangements that are already on offer to any third country, including for sectors such as insurance where no comprehensive equivalence regimes exist at all?
Mel Stride
I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman, although it is contained in the documentation that has come out of the negotiations. There will be an enhanced equivalence regime in respect of financial services. It is there in black and white. I am very happy to speak to him after questions and take him through the relevant paragraphs.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government meet regularly with the airline industry to discuss a range of issues, including the future of air passenger duty and the domestic aviation market. I met a number of UK-based airlines earlier in autumn prior to the Budget.
Sir Hugo Swire
I make no apologies for continuing to lobby Treasury Ministers on the iniquity of air passenger duty and the discriminatory application of it to Flybe, based in my constituency at Exeter airport, which is the UK’s largest domestic carrier. Will the Treasury look again at Flybe and its particular set of circumstances?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is nothing if not persistent, but we are not able to vary air passenger duty under EU state aid rules for different regions of the United Kingdom, including the south-west. That will change, or may, depending on the final state of things once we have left the European Union, but we have taken action in government: we have frozen short-haul rates for eight years in a row and exempted children going on family holidays, including to the south-west.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response. He is well aware of the issue for Northern Ireland—the disadvantage that we have and the advantage that the Republic of Ireland has. Dublin airport has grown tremendously over the last period of time, so has he had any opportunity to speak to those in charge of Belfast International airport or Belfast City airport to gauge their opinion on how we can grow the economy?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary visited Northern Ireland earlier in the year and met representatives of the aviation sector. We announced at the Budget that we will be proceeding with a technical working group to look into and analyse further the remaining issues with respect to the hon. Gentleman’s proposal to devolve air passenger duty in Northern Ireland.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government have undertaken analysis to understand the impact of different EU exit scenarios on public sector net borrowing, which is a UK-wide metric, and we have published an assessment of the economic impact of EU exit on different sectors. For example, the analysis shows that manufacturing sectors are estimated to have a significantly higher output in the White Paper scenario than under the no-deal scenario.
Julie Elliott
I thank the Minister for that response, but is it not true that Office for National Statistics figures in the last few months have shown a 0.9% decline in manufacturing and a worrying 6.6% decline in the automotive sector? What are the Chancellor and the Minister doing to provide certainty to businesses in this area about the impact of this Government’s chaotic Brexit policy?
John Glen
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. The automotive issue is related to other factors, including diesel. The Government are focused on investing in infrastructure in the north-east. I think that she would be very pleased to know that since 2010, we have had 66,000 new jobs in the north-east as a consequence of more business growth.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I can introduce my hon. Friend to manufacturers who find it significantly easier to export to the rest of the world than to the EU. Is there a lesson in that?
John Glen
I think my right hon. Friend is right to say that the Treasury is looking at growth opportunities across the whole world, and that is why the Chancellor set out in his Mansion House speech the aspiration to have global financial partnerships that make the best of those opportunities.
Mr Speaker
I am perfectly open to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) coming in on this question if he is minded to do so, but I am not psychic, so I cannot anticipate his wishes. He needs to stand if he wishes to do so.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
John Glen
There is considerable analysis from the Bank of England and the Government’s analysis of the long-term effect of the different options, with a significant reference paper demonstrating the different scenarios and what lies behind them. The Government are seeking to deliver on the decision of the British people in the referendum in a way that maximises the opportunities for the British economy.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
This Government are determined to make the UK the best place in the world to start a business. We are keeping taxes low and helping businesses and entrepreneurs to access the support that they need. We have cut corporation tax to the lowest rate in the G20 and made changes to business rates that will be worth over £13 billion by 2023.
Jack Brereton
I thank the Minister for that response. Walker’s Nonsuch, a family business in my constituency since 1894 and England’s finest toffee producer, enthusiastically welcomed the increased annual investment allowance. Does he agree that it is essential to continue to reduce tax on companies so that they invest in new equipment, increase productivity and create more jobs?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While the Labour party wants to increase taxes on business, including on small businesses, we are cutting them, and the increased annual investment allowance will enable businesses such as the one in his constituency to invest in plant, machinery and new technology to drive it to future success.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The broken business rates system is having a seriously detrimental impact on our high streets, and that is seen right across York. Will the Minister meet me and York Retail Forum to discuss the impact it is having on York and, in particular, the proposals it wants to see on turnover tax?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady. We announced in the Budget that 90% of smaller retailers, including many in her constituency, would see a 30% reduction in their business rates, and the future high streets fund is designed exactly for communities such as the one she represents.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that keeping the VAT threshold at £85,000 demonstrates that the Government are firmly on the side of West Oxfordshire’s small businesses?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The VAT threshold in this country is high by international standards. We have retained it at that level to support small businesses, which this Government will always champion.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Small businesses and subcontractors are still carrying the can for the collapse of Carillion. In the light of Interserve’s latest trouble, can the Minister update us on his Department’s liaison with it as a client, and say what level of risk the taxpayer and small businesses have been put to by Interserve’s latest attempts to stay afloat by refinancing its debt for equity?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is working closely on this matter, as he did with respect to Carillion. We want a wider base of companies supplying the Government and the public sector, to ensure that we have a resilient public sector in the eventuality that such situations happen again.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
We have increased the overall spending on early years and children’s services to £12.7 billion.
Liz McInnes
My local council, Rochdale Borough, predicts an overspend of £4.5 million this year on children’s services, with a predicted total overspend in England of £840 million, so will the Chief Secretary now admit that £84 million—just one tenth of the total overspend—goes nowhere near addressing this local and national crisis?
Elizabeth Truss
The £84 million is specifically to roll out pilots and projects that we know have worked to reduce demand on children’s services and make sure children get a better outcome, but at the Budget we also put in an extra £410 million, which councils can spend on either adult social care or children’s social care.
Mr Speaker
It is always worth staying for topical questions, if colleagues are interested.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
My principal responsibility is to ensure economic stability and the continued prosperity of the British people, and at this juncture the best way to achieve this objective is to back the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, ensuring a smooth and orderly departure from the EU, delivering on the decision of the British people, securing a close economic partnership with our most important trading partners and protecting the jobs and living standards of our people. The deal will allow us to come together again and assure Britain of the brighter future it deserves.
Layla Moran
Modern universities will be hit hard by the unexpected changes to the teacher pension scheme. In fact, one is predicting a 5% reduction in its workforce, including around student support. Can the Chancellor give any assurances to universities struggling to cope with this change?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
The changes to public sector pensions have resulted from increases in contributions that will ultimately benefit lecturers retiring from university and retiring teachers. We are looking, through the Augar review, at the question of higher education funding overall, but ultimately it is for universities to find that extra money.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question. The Government recognise that the current international tax regime is not fit for purpose when it comes to taxing certain types of digital platform-based businesses—the types to which my hon. Friend has referred—and we are therefore working with the OECD and the European Union to arrive at a multilateral solution to ensure that the right tax is paid. However, we have made it clear, and the Chancellor made it clear in the Budget, that in the event that we do not secure a multilateral agreement, we will move ahead unilaterally by 2020 to ensure that those businesses pay a fair share of tax.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The merely synthetic construct that is before the House has nothing to do with the real concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). It is the dodgy deal—the tuppence-ha’penny Brexit deal—of the Prime Minister. I am led to believe that the Chancellor has ostensibly, but forlornly, attempted to mitigate the Prime Minister’s disastrous handling of Brexit. If that is the case, will he continue his endeavours by using the powers in section 31 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 to maintain the UK in a customs union with the EU?
Mr Hammond
It is not the Government’s policy to maintain a permanent customs union with the European Union. Opposition Front Benchers often offer a customs union as if it were a magical solution, but it will not deliver us frictionless borders; it will introduce regulatory friction at our borders with the European Union, and it will introduce regulatory friction between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Peter Dowd
The Chancellor’s answer shows that, just like Parliament yesterday, we have been treated with contempt by him, and he has been treated with contempt by the Prime Minister and brushed aside. Let me ask him again: in the national interest—not the Tory party’s interest, or his own interest—at what point will he break cover and use the powers in section 31 of the Act which he initiated and which his Ministers guided through Parliament? Or is this just another Tory parliamentary sham?
Mr Hammond
Those powers are there specifically to deal with the customs union that we will need to create with the Crown dependencies, not for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman was trying very hard, but—forgive me: I say this by way of kindly counsel to the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member—questions must be about the policies of the Government, as the Clerk has just swivelled round to remind me, and not about the policies or tactics of the Opposition. We will leave that there, and come to Helen Goodman.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Mr Hammond
I am very confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will succeed in the mission that she is undertaking today, and I look forward to her reporting to the House on the progress that she has made.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Mel Stride
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of low taxes. Under this Government, corporation tax has been reduced from 28% to 19% and will be further reduced to 17%; and through the increase in the personal allowance that was announced in the Budget, we have taken about 4 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. As for my right hon. Friend’s specific point about aligning national insurance and income tax, that is a very complex thing to do. There would be a considerable number of losers, as well as some gainers. However, the Office of Tax Simplification has looked into it in the past, and we will keep it under review.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The City is very content with the deal we have on financial services, under which we would seek and secure enhanced equivalence decisions six months before the end of the implementation period, and the degree of dialogue with and support from the City has been constant throughout.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Given the £900 million of additional funding for the Scottish block grant announced in the Budget, what discussions has the Chancellor had with the SNP Scottish Government about following his example and cutting business rates?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have regular meetings with the Scottish Finance Secretary, and of course the Scottish Government have the opportunity in their budget tomorrow to match the business rate cuts we have made in England.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Mr Hammond
I think I have been perfectly clear and consistent in expressing the view that no deal would be a very bad outcome for this country, and I will do everything I can to make sure that that is not an outcome we face.
A White Paper on the Government’s future migration policy will be published shortly.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
When criticising a Labour Budget in 2005, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that the taxpayer
“is entitled to be protected from retrospective or retroactive legislation.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1139.]
but through the 2019 loan charge, that is precisely what HMRC is now doing to thousands of people who acted in good faith and in accordance with the rules at the time. May I urge my right hon. Friend once again not to backdate the charge to before 2017?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I have to fundamentally disagree with him. The arrangements entered into around disguised remuneration, for which the loan charge is being applied, were always defective at the time they were being used. They have been taken through the courts many times over many years by HMRC and been found to be defective. They also went through, in a particular case, the Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—and the scheme was found to be defective. So this is not a retrospective measure, but it is a question of tax fairness, and of course those who are involved can come forward and have discussions with HMRC, who, where there are difficulties around payment, will be sympathetic and enter into time-to-pay arrangements to make sure those people are protected as well as paying the right tax.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Mr Hammond
First, I should make it clear that the additional support we are providing to Crossrail is in the form of a loan that will be repaid to the Government by London, so it is London taxpayers and London farepayers who will meet the cost of the overrun. The north-west is now the second-highest region in the UK for transport investment: per capita investment has risen from £648 per year between 2006-07 and 2009-10 to £1,129 a year between 2014-15 and 2017-18.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
It is very welcome that today’s figures show that wages are rising, unemployment is falling and we have a record number of people in work, but we still need more good jobs in Leicestershire. So, when the Leicestershire industrial strategy comes forward with exciting plans to boost the life sciences and small satellite manufacturing, will the Treasury look closely at getting behind it?
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Hammond
We have made it clear that we will first prioritise the security of the UK, and that we will then prioritise the flow of trade. We will not prioritise the collection of customs tariffs. The hon. Lady will be aware that these are tariffs that we are not currently collecting; they would be additional revenues. We will treat that as something that we can do in slower time, if the situation arises.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Later today the House will debate fuel poverty. Does the Chancellor agree that the greatest lever that we can pull to alleviate the challenge of fuel poverty is to incentivise home energy efficiency? Will he look at what the Treasury can do to address that?
Mr Hammond
That is certainly one of the levers that we can pull, and I am happy to look again at how we support home energy efficiency.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
When will the Government bring forward proposals to allow well-funded credit unions to provide low-cost credit cards and low-cost car loans, and to invest in other social programmes such as energy co-operatives and housing schemes?
John Glen
Following on from the Budget, we have a series of measures to assist credit unions to expand their role in delivering affordable credit across communities. We have a scheme of work over the next three months to pilot interest-free loans and prize-linked saving schemes, to help credit unions to grow as they have been doing in recent years.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
What do the Government make of the Centre for European Reform’s report this week that warned of a 60% fall in UK financial services exports to the EU in the event that we lose access to the single market and put a free trade agreement in its place?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What impact will Brexit have on our universities, particularly in Coventry? More importantly, our universities do projects with Europe and also work closely with the manufacturing industry, including companies such as Jaguar Land Rover. What are we going to do about that?
Mr Hammond
Our university sector is a vital asset to the UK. Over the past decade we have seen the universities working much more closely with industry, and that relationship is having a positive and advantageous effect on the growth profile and the technology uptake in the economy. As we leave the European Union, it is vital that our universities are able to go on exchanging students and teaching staff with European institutions, and we will do everything we can to ensure that that happens.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we should hear from my favourite estate agent. I call Mr Kevin Hollinrake.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Banks that are guilty of the scandalous mistreatment of small businesses are allowed to design and oversee their own redress schemes, including determining the level of compensation paid to the victims. Does the Minister agree that Parliament and the regulator should take control of those processes?
John Glen
I have always said that the banks need to do more to restore their relationship with SMEs, and I welcome the scheme that UK Finance has announced to address unresolved historical complaints. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend next week, with the Chancellor, to discuss the Government’s position.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Inverness and Highlands city region deal was agreed a little while ago, and that is very good news. A whole shedload of money has been spent on Inverness—well done, Inverness!—but precious little has been spent on the outlying areas, including Wick and Thurso. That is surely not in the spirit of the deal. Should there not be an audit of this kind of deal in future?
Elizabeth Truss
We are doing city deals right across Scotland and they are having huge benefits for the local economy. We have also announced in the Budget a freeze in whisky duty. The question now is how the Scottish Government will respond to that in their budget tomorrow. Will they cut income tax, and will they also cut business rates?
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
How many more trees will be planted as a result of investment announced in the recent Budget?
Mr Hammond
A very large number. I will go back to the Treasury and write to my hon. Friend with a precise figure.
Mr Speaker
Can I politely suggest to the Chancellor that if he were to lodge a copy of his reply with the requisite statistical information in the Library, I do not say that he will be garlanded, but he might come close to it?
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I am sure that the Chancellor will be as concerned as I am by the words of the chief inspector of schools, Amanda Spielman, who said that cuts to funding are hitting the sustainability and quality of our further education colleges. Instead of doing an impression of the Grinch, will the Chancellor be our Father Christmas and give our FE colleges the funding and presents that they want for Christmas?
Elizabeth Truss
We have protected the funding of FE colleges since 2015. We are also investing £500 million in T-levels and improved technical education. More low-income students are going to university and getting high-quality apprenticeships.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I welcome the extra £1 billion for the armed forces that was announced in the Budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only this Government’s sensible management of the economy has made that possible?
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
In the next two months, the Royal Bank of Scotland will close all but 56 branches in cities across England, leaving banking deserts in towns and rural areas like mine. What is the Chancellor doing to use the Government’s shareholding to exert public pressure on RBS and ensure that we have no banking deserts?
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most successful companies in our country, Johnson Matthey in my constituency, is committed to having a fair-deal, not a no-deal Brexit because it feels that it is vital that there should be an orderly retreat, not chaos? Does he agree that the Prime Minister’s deal would achieve that?
Mr Hammond
Yes, and that is indeed the express view of the vast majority of businesses in this country.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor work with the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to support my ten-minute rule Bill on project bank accounts for Government projects? It will protect small businesses from losses when tier 1 suppliers such as Carillion and Interserve collapse.
Mr Hammond
I am happy to look further at the hon. Lady’s Bill. It is an interesting idea and I know that the Cabinet Office commercial secretariat has been looking at her proposals.
Petition
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents about the green deal scheme. Several of my constituents have lost out through the mis-selling of solar panels by Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Ltd. The green deal is a Government-backed scheme, obviously, which gave it an air of authenticity that has allowed people to basically be ripped off, left paying off long-term loans that last longer than the life span of the product and paying higher bills than had they never participated in the first place.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of residents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the Government backed Green Deal Scheme has affected petitioners as we have suffered a detriment both to our finances, our private and family lives; further that many vulnerable residents have invested their life savings in good faith, and others have accrued up to £17,000 in debt to pay for the work that was carried out; and further that in many cases the installer did not apply for building warrants and as a result we are unable to sell our properties or have the assurance that they are safe to live in, or can be insured.
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to ensure that the Government will compensate and protect people who have found themselves suffering a detriment because of the Government backed scheme, and take steps to ensure that this cannot happen in the future.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002304]
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Attorney General to make a statement about the Government’s obligations under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I recognise that this question was the subject of much discussion and some speculation yesterday, so I hope to be able to put the minds of the right hon. Lady and other hon. Members at ease.
Put simply, in keeping with the clear intention of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government will ensure that the question whether to accept an agreement is brought back to this House before 21 January. If Parliament accepts that deal, we will introduce the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill to implement the withdrawal agreement in domestic legislation.
If Parliament were to reject the deal, the Government would be required to make a statement on our proposed next steps and table a motion in neutral terms on that statement. Following the passing of the amendment to the business of the House motion last week, that motion will be amendable. It is our clear intention that this House will consider the matter before 21 January, and have the opportunity to decide on the deal.
Let me also say this clearly: in the unlikely and highly undesirable circumstances that, as of 21 January, there is no deal before the House, the Government would bring a statement to the House and arrange for a debate, as specified by the law.
I am confident that we will have a deal that the House can support. I hope that the statement puts to rest hon. Members’ concerns about the Government’s commitment to meet the spirit, as well as the letter, of the withdrawal Act, and to respect the will of the House.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the Minister for those assurances but, in the current circumstances, they are not enough. I asked this urgent question of the Attorney General because we need to know the Government’s legal interpretation of section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and we need to be assured that, as well as legally, the Government will abide by the spirit of the Act. Now that the Government have pulled the vote, we do not know when a vote will come on the deal, or even whether a vote will come.
No. 10’s official spokesman said this morning that the vote would come by 21 January, and the Minister has said that it will come by 21 January. However, yesterday morning the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is sitting on the Front Bench, confirmed that the vote was 100% going to happen. Yesterday, at 11 am, No. 10’s spokesperson said that the vote “is going ahead.” By 3.30 pm, the Prime Minister had pulled it.
The Minister’s warm words are therefore not enough, when so much is at stake. Who knows? This goes for the Cabinet and for all Conservative Members, too. None of us knows whether the Prime Minister is going to pull the vote again, or whether she is even going to table a vote on the deal again.
If we get to 21 January and there is no deal, the agreement of Parliament was that the Government should make a statement, that Parliament should be able to vote on it and that it should be amendable. The Minister says that, in the unlikely event that there is no deal, that would happen. However, we need an urgent assurance from the Attorney General that the Government will not find a loophole in this by saying that there is a deal, even though we have not voted on it, and thereby avoiding the requirements of section 13 subsections (7) to (11), which would require a vote by 21 January.
In other words, if the Government never quite get round to offering a vote on this deal until it is too late, but also do not have a vote on no deal, keeping us in limbo—no vote on the deal and no vote on no deal—it would be a constitutional outrage. It would upend the spirit of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and, much worse, it would either let the country drift or force the country into no deal without a parliamentary vote.
We need written assurances from the Attorney General on the Government’s interpretation of the Act, and we need the assurance that, even if there has been no vote on this deal and even if the Government still claim that the deal applies were there to be no vote on it by 21 January, the Government will still abide by section 13 subsections (7) to (11) and ensure there is a statement and an amendable vote on their plans, including on whether or not this means no deal, and that it will happen, under any circumstances, by 21 January.
I make no apology for my purpose in asking this urgent question. I already think 21 January is far too late for businesses and for Government Departments, which will already be thinking that they have to chuck everything at preparing for no deal. I want to stop this country careering into no deal, either by accident or by the deliberate intention of the Government, with all the damaging consequences for jobs, for prosperity and for our national security, without Parliament having a say and without Parliament being able to stop that happening. Even if other Members do not agree with me in that purpose, I hope that they will agree that this Parliament cannot be ignored, which is why we need the Attorney General’s written advice.
Mr Walker
I have great respect for the right hon. Lady. I understand that she came to this House expecting to have a row about the Government’s interpretation, and I understand the questions she has just asked. I am responding to this urgent question because my Department is responsible for the legislation that enacts the deal, and I have given her our very clear interpretation of that legislation, which is that we will have a motion before the House by 21 January, in all the different scenarios I talked through in my statement.
The answer to the right hon. Lady is very clear. We respect the decision made by this House that the Government should come back to the House with a motion in the event that no deal had been agreed or in the event that this House had rejected a deal. That is clear from my statement.
What we are therefore saying is that there will be a motion by 21 January, and I agree with the right hon. Lady—I would much rather it were, and I fully expect it to be, sooner. I fully expect this House to have the opportunity to debate a withdrawal agreement that it is able to support. So let us work together to achieve that, but let us not allow some of the conspiracy theories and the scare stories that have been told about this to run away when I have just clarified the Government’s position.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I have great sympathy for the points made by both the Minister, who is acting with integrity, as he always has done in his parliamentary career, and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). It is unquestionable that this Parliament must have a say—a meaningful vote—on the deal, or no deal, that comes about. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be no trickery by the Government to stop Parliament from having a say?
Mr Walker
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s words, and I am happy to give that categorical assurance. As my statement reflected, we will be putting a motion before Parliament, even in the circumstances that no deal was before the House, but I strongly believe and expect that there will be a deal before this House, which I will be urging Parliament to support.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for applying for this urgent question and to you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but the reality is that the Attorney General should be here to speak about the legal implications of this agreement. Yesterday, the Prime Minister used the phrase “an accidental no deal” in this House. The fact that she used that phrase is itself evidence of a dereliction of leadership. Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is therefore crucial to this House’s ability to prevent a chaotic no-deal outcome, which would do enormous damage to our security, economy and society.
I wonder whether the Minister can answer the following questions. The Prime Minister’s official spokesperson has reiterated today that the Government will bring back the meaningful vote by 21 January, but is it not completely contrary to the national interest for the Prime Minister to run down another six weeks on the clock when all she is seeking is reassurances and clarification on a document that Parliament already understands? If we are relying on the Government’s word or, to use the Minister’s phrase, “clear intention” that they will keep to the 21 January deadline, rather than the clear force of the law, does he not understand that in this week of all weeks that constitutes no reassurance at all?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister could not properly answer questions about the legal force of the 21 January deadline, and the Leader of the House could not properly answer questions about the legal status and force of the amendment from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). The reassurance that was just given by this Minister means nothing without the legal backing of the Attorney General, who is not here. Is the truth not that this decision to pull the vote was made in panicked haste, without thinking through the economic, political and constitutional implications for our country?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman made my point clearly when he said that the Prime Minister’s spokesman has said the same thing as I said this morning from the Dispatch Box—that there will be such a meaningful vote before the House before 21 January. The hon. Gentleman also talked about acting contrary to the national interest, and I think we are clear on what acting contrary to the national interest is. It is Labour’s approach of blindly opposing any sensible steps taken by the Government to secure a deal, while proposing no alternatives.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement, but may I just pick him up on a couple of points? First, the section 13 procedure presupposes that the Government have an initialled deal with the EU, and of course we have such a deal, which is why we started debate on it last week, for the purpose of deciding whether the House should or should not approve it. In those circumstances, can he provide an assurance to the House that if the initialled deal is continuing in its current form, as initialled, the House can complete its consideration, not on a day just before 21 January but expeditiously, as was clearly provided for in the 2018 Act? Secondly, may I take it from what he has said that the amendment that was tabled to the procedure under section 13 to allow for amendable motions thereafter is now fully accepted by the Government, as it should prevail in future?
Mr Walker
Yes, and I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the points that he has raised. I agree with him; I have given that commitment from the Dispatch Box with regard to his amendment, which does mean that the motion would be amendable. As for the House being able to complete its considerations expeditiously, we all have that in mind. The Prime Minister has made clear her determination to seek out those assurances, listening to the concerns that have been raised in the House, and then to come back swiftly to this House so that we can complete those considerations.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
This is a Government who have been found in contempt of Parliament and who continue to demonstrate their contempt for parliamentary democracy on a daily basis. Clearly, they prefer to communicate with MPs through the lobby briefings rather than on the Floor of this House, and they are trying to evade their legal responsibilities by failing to have the Attorney General here to answer this question and putting the Minister up. I see that the Solicitor General is on the Front Bench and engaged in anxious conversation. Why was he not put up to answer this question?
It has been made clear in the past 24 hours by many member states of the EU, and by Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, that there is no question of any meaningful renegotiation. So may I ask the Minister now for a cast-iron guarantee that the initialled deal will be brought back to this House for a vote before 21 January—and if so, on what date? Can he also guarantee that that motion will be amendable? If he cannot give me that cast-iron guarantee, will he look seriously at the possibility of putting this deal to the people of the four nations of the United Kingdom to see whether they want this deal or whether they would prefer to stay in the EU on our current terms and conditions, as the European Court of Justice made clear is possible yesterday?
Mr Walker
The hon. and learned lady should pay attention to what I have already said in my statement, which is that we will be bringing a motion before the House, either on this deal, as I would much prefer, with the assurances that the Prime Minister will by then have won, so that this House can vote on that, or even in the circumstances that that were not on the table. She raises the idea of a people’s vote once again, and we very clearly had a people’s vote. We had that people’s vote across the whole of the UK in 2016, and it is our duty as Members of this House to deliver on that.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications, but may I press him on one point that I do not think he covered? Is he confirming that if there is, under section 13(8), a statement at some point before 21 January, as there must be under that section if the Prime Minister has by then concluded that she cannot complete a deal, that statement will be accompanied by a motion which, though in neutral terms, will be amendable? Or did his point about the amendment cover only a statement and motion under sections 13(1) and 13(4)?
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am afraid the Minister, for whom I have great respect, has not wholly succeeded in his aim of providing reassurance to the House, because what we learned yesterday is that today’s assurances can disappear tomorrow like a puff of wind. Can he clarify the following? If the withdrawal agreement comes back—the Government say that it will—before 21 January and is defeated, legally speaking, for the purposes of section 13 of the 2018 Act, is there still “agreement in principle” with the European Union? This is a very important point in view of the previous question that was asked, because even if it is defeated, for the purposes of the Act the only thing that is referred to as “agreement in principle” has been reached. The Prime Minister and the Government said, I believe on 28 November, that agreement in principle had been reached. So can he clarify that that remains the case, even if the withdrawal agreement is defeated?
Mr Walker
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and the work that he does with the Select Committee, but I must say that in this case I do not share his interpretation. Section 13 is very clear: in scenarios in which either a deal had not been reached or a deal had been voted down, a statement would be required. That is my understanding of the commitment that we have made. We would need to come to the House and have that vote, even in circumstances in which a deal had been brought before the House and turned down.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Just to press further on this point, will my hon. Friend clarify, in the light of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, whether the Government still maintain that a political agreement has been reached in line with the statutory statement presented to Parliament on 26 November? As things stand today, do we still have a valid initialled deal?
Mr Walker
The Prime Minister has been clear that of course we have reached an initial deal with the EU, but she has listened to the concerns of this House and gone back to seek to discuss that deal and to seek assurances on it. I think that means that she will want to put before the House a deal with those assurances and to ensure that the House has its meaningful vote on that arrangement.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I have some sympathy for the Minister, because he is doing his best to give the House assurances about what is likely to happen, but the fact is that he is appearing on behalf of a Prime Minister who has completely shredded her credibility by doing what she did yesterday. She was prepared to send out her Cabinet colleagues to make one assertion with confidence in the morning, while she was plotting to reverse it at the same time as she had them in front of the TV cameras. Despite the Minister’s personal integrity, why should we believe a single thing that he tells us today?
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend has been absolutely crystal clear that there will be a meaningful debate and a meaningful vote. Does he share my concern that Opposition Members are more interested in driving damaging uncertainty than in supporting the Prime Minister, who is trying to deliver the best deal for this country?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Unfortunately for the Minister—he should not take this personally—any assurances that the Government give have the half-life of one of those isotopes that we are all so worried about. He must be aware that there will be absolute uproar in the House if the Government try to engineer, by trickery or chicanery, avoiding having a vote on this deal. Will he give us a categorical assurance that if we do get to vote on the deal and, as is expected, amendments in support of a people’s vote are tabled, the Government will not seek to thwart any such amendment or vote?
Mr Walker
To have a suggestion from the Liberal Democrats of assurances not being worth the paper they are written on is quite strong. The House has already voted, many times, on a second referendum, and every time the idea has been defeated, because clearly the majority of Members of this House want to respect the people’s vote that we had in 2016.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
After we get the vote and vote for the agreement, at what stage can we subsequently walk away from trade negotiations should the terms prove sufficiently unattractive?
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Why would anyone believe a word that the Government say about when the vote will take place when Ministers have spent weeks promising that the vote would be today, and when the Prime Minister’s only hope of survival is to delay the vote till the last possible minute to try to force MPs to change their minds?
Mr Walker
I simply do not agree with the hon. Lady’s narrative. The Prime Minister has been clear that she has listened to the House. She understands the concerns throughout the House and wants to take them back to European counterparts to make sure that we have the best deal before the House. She will then bring that back here and put it before the House for us to decide on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
That was a very engaging wave from the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), but it is not the normal means by which to procure the attention of the Chair. It would be a pity to squander the right hon. Gentleman at such an early stage of our proceedings, so I shall come to him in due course.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
In 108 days we run out of road, and the only red line that has not been laid down is the one in front of the cliff’s edge, over which we would fall into a chaotic no deal. I urge the Minister and the Government to bring forward the meaningful vote to next week, because by then at least we will know what cosmetic changes have been made in Brussels.
Mr Walker
I say gently to my hon. Friend that we should make sure the Prime Minister has the opportunity that she seeks to get the best deal in front of this House, and that we have the assurances we need so that the whole House can get behind the deal. My hon. Friend is a great champion of working across party lines; we ought to be taking this matter forward in a cross-party manner that delivers for the whole country. I do not believe that it would be right to rush into having a vote of this nature before we had sought those assurances.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
But given the fact that the NHS and thousands of businesses throughout the country will have to start to implement their plans for no-deal contingencies before Christmas, would that not be grossly irresponsible? What possible reason can the Minister give for refusing to hold the rest of the debate and the vote next week?
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman should be working with us to provide the certainty and stability that the NHS and many others want by securing the agreement and the implementation period that it provides. That would be in the best interests of all the organisations of which he speaks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I cannot wait any longer to hear the mellifluous tones of the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey).
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I fear I have raised the bar too high, Mr Speaker.
It seems unlikely that the Prime Minister will get any substantial changes to the withdrawal agreement, so it is beginning to look like she has withdrawn the vote for her benefit, not for Parliament’s benefit. Is it not time to bring back the withdrawal agreement, have the vote and allow Parliament to make a decision? Like the Minister, I do not favour a second referendum. I would like Parliament to reach a conclusion on Brexit.
Mr Walker
We are all clear that Parliament will have its crucial say in this process, which is why I made this statement to make it clear that there will be a meaningful vote before Parliament. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the date of 21 January is at the back end of when we want to see that vote. We want to see it come sooner, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will strive to ensure that she can bring it to the House even sooner than that.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I have considered the withdrawal agreement in good faith, but time after time the Prime Minister has broken her word, and over the past two and a half years she has sought to withhold information about the impact that the different options will have on us from not only the House but the public. I have businesses in Wigan that are not bidding for contracts because they do not know whether they will be able to deliver them, I have thousands of food manufacturing jobs at stake, and I have smaller food manufacturing firms that will go under if no deal becomes a political reality. Will the Minister begin to restore some trust among Members of Parliament, whose votes the Government still supposedly seek, and tell us today, categorically, that the Government will explore every option, including the extension of article 50, before they will allow the country to leave the EU with no deal at all?
Mr Walker
We have before us an option to make sure that we leave with a negotiated deal with an implementation period. The Prime Minister is seeking to improve that deal still further to make sure that the House has the best option to move forward on an orderly basis. That is the route that we should take.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I genuinely believe that there are Members on the Labour Back Benches who, like me, want to avoid a no-deal Brexit and the risks of a divisive second referendum. I therefore urge the Minister, whom I know to be a thoughtful listener, to spend some of the time that has become available in his diary with some of those Labour Back Benchers, to see whether their concerns can be addressed.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
There are circumstances in which, under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government are required to make a statement on how to proceed by 21 January. Those are if the Commons decides not to approve a deal presented by the Government, or if no agreement in principle can be reached. But the House of Commons Library, in its note prepared overnight on this, says:
“If the Government maintains that its political agreement persists, the requirement to make a statement could be avoided.”
That is why Opposition Members are suspicious. Is the Government’s strategy to continue to give us a meaningful vote, or is it instead to run down the clock and, in the face of no deal, in the words of “The Godfather”, make us an offer that we can’t refuse?
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I think I have already provided the answer. Let me just repeat the line towards the end of my statement in answer to this urgent question: in the unlikely and highly undesirable circumstances that, as of 21 January, there is no deal before the House, the Government would bring a statement to the House and arrange for a debate, as specified by the law. That answers his question precisely.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Section 13(2) provides that the meaningful vote should, so far as practical, be held before the European Parliament decides whether to consent to the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement has been concluded, but not approved. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the meaningful vote will take place before the European Parliament makes that decision?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
This whole situation is bonkers and the public are, frankly, fed up with this carry-on. We already know the impact that it is having on the academic sector, so will the Minister confirm that allowing this to drag on into the new year is simply unacceptable to the electorate? Will he categorically rule out the possibility of the Government waiting until March before announcing no deal?
Mr Walker
I could not have been much clearer in my statement earlier that we will be having a meaningful vote before 21 January. I am very clear that I want the Prime Minister to go and get the assurances that she seeks and to come back to this House as soon as possible, and I am sure that that is exactly what she intends to do.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This is important not only for everybody in this country, but for the people in Gibraltar. Will my hon. Friend first reassure me that the initial deal still exists as of this moment and is still a legal deal on the table, because that certainty is really important for them; and, secondly, take on board the fact that, for those of us who want to support the deal, the sooner that it is brought back the better, as we wish the Prime Minister well in what she is trying to do?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He and I have both recently heard directly from the Chief Minister in Gibraltar, who is very clear in his support for this deal because he thinks that it meets Gibraltar’s key interests and preserves British sovereignty. Those are crucial points, which I look forward to supporting when the deal returns to the House.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am sorry to sound suspicious, but the Minister has used two words in his statement that make us all suspicious. They are “assurance” and “reassurance”, which we have heard time and again from this Government, and then they have reneged on them. Given that a vast majority of MPs in this House wish to prevent no deal—indeed, the Chancellor repeated that in Treasury questions just before this urgent question—will the Government either rule that out now, or bring a motion to the House so that we can vote on it and rule out a no-deal scenario?
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that motions of this House, amended or otherwise, do not override the law?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will understand that yesterday shredded all the good will that was left in the House on assurances such as these. I listened to the Attorney General last Monday when he told this House that he had
“a solemn and constitutional duty…to advise it on these legal questions objectively and impartially, and to place such legal expertise as I have at its disposal. The historical precedents strongly support that view. The House may be sure that I shall discharge this duty with uncompromising and rigorous fidelity.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 546.]
The fact that he is not here today to give that legal weight to what the Minister is saying is a concern to all of us who have to go back to our constituents to explain what on earth is happening in this place. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the Attorney General has consulted him on what he has said today, and that he will publish any legal advice that he has given in the light of yesterday’s rulings and what happens on section 13?
Mr Walker
I am sure that if the hon. Lady were to approach the Attorney General, he would discharge all those responsibilities, but this question was about an Act for which my Department is responsible. Of course it is right that I should be at the Dispatch Box as a Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union to answer questions on our legislation.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The leader of the Labour party regularly attends meetings of his European socialist colleagues, many of whom are actually in Government. Is the Minister aware of anything positive whatsoever that has come out of those meetings to facilitate the deal and help to deliver on Brexit, or is the Labour party, as far as delivering a workable Brexit is concerned, part of the problem, not part of the solution?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his inquiry, which suffers from the rather notable disadvantage that the Leader of the Opposition has no responsibility for the formulation of policy or for the continent-wide attempts to secure an agreement. Therefore I emphasise, on advice, that there is no responsibility on the Minister to attempt to answer what was no doubt a well-meaning, but, in practical terms, disorderly question.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm once again for the benefit of this House and for the people in the country who will read his remarks and listen to what he has said that there are absolutely no circumstances—no legal interpretation, no scenario that may crop up over the next few days or weeks—that will deny this Parliament the opportunity to vote on whatever the Government come back with? I say to the Minister that, as he has heard from Members across the House, trust in the Government is such that he has a lot of work to do to make people believe him.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend referred to the withdrawal agreement Bill that would follow a successful vote for the agreement. Does he agree that that will be a major piece of constitutional legislation covering some important issues such how citizens’ rights are embedded, what the legal base is for laws during the transition period, what the duty on our Supreme Court is in terms of Court of Justice decisions, and so on? What steps will he take to make sure that there is an opportunity to consult widely on that, and that we are not left with inadequate time to consider those very important points?
Mr Walker
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point: that will be a crucial piece of legislation as we move forward. Of course it is right that the House should have its meaningful vote first before the introduction of the withdrawal agreement Bill, but we have been doing a huge amount of work to prepare that legislation. We have published a White Paper on it, and we shall continue to engage with the House and its Select Committees on it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Prime Minister has mentioned on a number of occasions recently, including in her statement yesterday, that it is her deal, no deal or no Brexit. How are the Government preparing for the Prime Minister’s third option? If she is not taking it seriously, why would she mention it?
Mr Walker
I think the Prime Minister has been very clear that that is a political comment about the outcomes if other people were to take control. We are very clear that we will not be revoking article 50—my Secretary of State made that very clear yesterday—so it is a question of having an orderly withdrawal with an agreement, or no deal. The orderly withdrawal with an agreement is the preferable of the two options.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is absolutely right that you, Mr Speaker, your Clerks, the Library and the Government will want to agree on the rules arising from the legislation thus far passed, so that we can have certainty over the Brexit endgame. But that endgame is the most chaotic and uncertain scenario imaginable within the entire Brexit process, so are we not better finding common ground now so that we can support a deal and deliver Brexit for the British public?
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Government’s credibility is in threads. If this country faces a no-deal exit from the European Union, the fault and responsibility will lie squarely with the Government, particularly the Prime Minister. Having listened to the Minister this afternoon, is it not the case that what we are now facing is not a meaningful vote, but a blackmail strategy?
Mr Walker
Absolutely not. I have made it clear that this House will have a meaningful vote under all circumstances, but it is incumbent on MPs on both sides of the House to remember what they promised to their electorate—that is, delivering the outcome of the referendum and getting a good negotiated deal. That is something that we should all be supporting when the withdrawal agreement returns to this House.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
If Opposition Members continue to oppose any of the very generous compromises that have been put forward, at what point will he withdraw the offer of £39 billion for the bureaucracy in Brussels and spend it preparing for the full, clean, World Trade Organisation Brexit that over 17 million people have voted for?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend always makes his point with great force and power, but today I am talking about the Government’s commitments to this House and how we will meet them; that is what I want to focus on. We have put before the House a withdrawal agreement, which of course includes settling our dues with Brussels, but crucially also ending them and taking control of our money as we leave the EU.
Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday the Prime Minister failed to put before the House the deal that she herself described as the “best possible negotiable deal”, and now she is travelling the capitals of Europe pleading for help. There is a growing sense of chaos in the country, and a feeling that the Government are simply not in control. Does the Minister agree that one of the options he should be considering is putting this issue back to the people with an option to stay in the EU—the best deal we have?
Mr Walker
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. It is incumbent on us all to remember that it was this House that legislated for the referendum, and that promised people their views would be listened to and followed. It is therefore for us to deliver on the outcome of the referendum, as both our parties promised in their manifestos just last year.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
It is vital that the House has its say on this crucial issue, so I am grateful for the Minister’s assurances, but 21 January is nearly six weeks away. Does he agree that that should be a deadline, not a target? If this matter can come back before the House, it should. We need to resolve this at the earliest possible opportunity.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem is that nobody believes the Government anymore. That is exactly why the Attorney General should, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, be forced to come to the House and to put in writing the assurances that the Minister has given. Today the Minister has simply been put up as chaff for other Ministers above his pay grade who, quite frankly, are willing to resort to any level of trickery and contempt for this House. That is the reality. Speaking of trickery, will the Minister be very clear about whether any EU member states or European Commission officials were informed of the plan to pull the vote before the Cabinet discussed it and before this House was told?
Mr Walker
I have to say that chaff is a new description for me that I am honoured to receive from the hon. Gentleman. I am here to be very clear about the Government’s interpretation of section 13 of the withdrawal Act and to answer that we will have a meaningful vote. I am not here to speculate on other matters.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The contempt with which this Government hold Parliament seems to know no bounds. The answers of the Minister today suggest that it is either their way or the highway. That is not good enough. Parliament’s voice must be heard on this issue. Apart from the Minister’s word, what actual consequences are there if the Government do not bring a vote to the House of Commons by 21 January? There seem to be no consequences for holding Parliament in contempt, nor for pulling the vote that should have taken place today, so what will the consequences be if the Government do not bring a vote to the House before 21 January?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Yesterday we had a significant judgment from the European Court that opens up another option, so when the Minister tells the Attorney General that we want written advice, can the Attorney General take into account yesterday’s judgment in what he sends us?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The date of 21 January is a long way in the future, particularly for those EU citizens whose lives are on hold and who are struck with uncertainty. The Minister said that he thought that the vote could be brought back a lot earlier than that. Could we hear a bit more of the Minister’s thoughts? Given that there are more than four sitting weeks until 21 January, why can we not have this vote before we break for the Christmas recess?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman will know that the date of 21 January is set in the Act because that is what Parliament decided should be in the Act. I have been very clear that I would like to see this voted on before then, and I think that many Members across the House would like to see that. The hon. Gentleman talks about the important matter of European citizens. The deal that we have negotiated is the best way of securing their livelihoods and allowing them to continue as before, but of course the Government have also made significant commitments about the unilateral steps we would take, even in the absence of a deal.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
This week’s events have meant extra cost and extra disruption for business and public services. Can the Minister help me to understand why we are expected to believe his assurance that the Government will bring forward a vote before 21 January, in several weeks’ time, when we were unable to believe the word that was given by Government Ministers yesterday morning that there would be a vote today? May I also invite him to use a different expression? Rather than saying, “We will have a vote before 21 January”, can he tell us in legal terms that this Government must have a vote before 21 January?
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we all have a fairly shrewd idea that no amount of sugar-coating is going to salvage this deal. It is dead in the water and is highly likely to fail when it does meet the test of a parliamentary vote. Given that that is the situation, what contingencies are the Government planning? They have agreed that it would be disastrous for us to crash out with no deal, so are they ruling out any option, including potentially unilaterally revoking the article 50 declaration?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman talks about contingencies. Of course, a huge amount of contingency work has been done, including by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). We are very clear that the best way forward is to secure a deal to ensure that we have the best deal possible, and that is exactly what the Prime Minister is fighting for.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the dysfunctional and duplicitous behaviour that we have seen in the last few days, would not it be best if the Government listened to the very wise words of the former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major, speaking in Dublin today, who has asked for the revocation of article 50?
Mr Walker
No, I do not believe that it would be best. We have to remember that we were all elected on manifestos that respected the referendum result, and we have to deliver on that. I do pay heed to Sir John Major, when he makes the point about how important it is that we protect the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. That is exactly what we seek to do through the negotiations with the EU.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Government’s handling of this whole thing has been woeful. After yesterday’s shambles, I met staff of Reckitt Benckiser this morning, who told me that they are having to step up the preparations for a no-deal scenario, having received a letter from the Health Secretary saying that there could be problems at the ports for up to six months, which would mean major problems for pharmaceuticals and getting raw materials into the country. Is it not time that we now actually get on and have the vote? The Prime Minister will not bring back any major change to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration; let us have the vote before Christmas, and then we can see what we need to do next in the new year.
Mr Walker
I regularly meet pharmaceutical businesses to talk to them about the Government’s plan for a deal, and also no-deal contingency planning such as that which the hon. Lady talks about. I recognise that the industry strongly supports securing a deal that provides an implementation period that provides a clear pathway ahead for trade. We want to see that delivered. I think it is right that the Prime Minister should seek to put the best possible deal before this House.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The success of Jaguar Land Rover in my constituency has transformed the lives of thousands of workers, but they now face a bleak new year. Six weeks more of uncertainty take us ever closer to the cliff. Pending Parliament deciding where we eventually go, we must rule out no deal. Will the Government therefore call a vote next week on no deal-no Brexit?
Mr Walker
I have been very clear that the Government will allow a meaningful vote that will follow the letter and the spirit of the withdrawal Act. However, the best way to ensure the certainty that businesses crave is to make sure that we support across this House a withdrawal agreement that secures the implementation period and secures a good trade deal for our country.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Figures from yesterday show that the Minister’s Government spent £100,000 on social media promoting the Prime Minister’s deal before withdrawing it from the vote. Will he do two things? First, will he apologise for squandering public money in that way; and will he also give a guarantee that he will waste no more public money on pointless propaganda during this needlessly extended process?
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister acknowledge the enormous disquiet not just in all parts of this House but outside this place, across our country, that the expected vote today was pulled, despite repeated promises that it was 100% going ahead? We have heard from Europe that there is no chance of any change to the deal. Will his Government now take responsibility, stop this uncertainty—which, as he will have heard from countless colleagues, is having such a detrimental impact on our businesses and also on our nation’s mental health—and commit to bring forward the vote by Christmas so that we can all start 2019 with some certainty?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady has called for certainty. The best way for certainty is that this deal is brought back to this House with the assurances that European capitals are already saying that they can give to aid its ratification, so that we can all get behind it, back it and provide that certainty.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Yesterday’s fiasco has done further damage to this country’s once proud reputation for stability and good governance. Could the Minister explain to the House how another 40 days of drift and dither is going to help to restore that battered reputation?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman, who once had aspirations to lead the Opposition, might have provided perhaps less drift and dither from the Opposition Front Bench. But what he would not have done, I think, is actually do what the Labour manifesto promised to do, which was to deliver on the outcome of the referendum.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I told my constituents in Bristol West that I will be voting against the Government’s deal and voting against no deal this evening, but the Government have pulled those votes, and yesterday the Minister’s boss said that he would not be revoking article 50. So is not the truth that this Government are trying to hold a no-deal Brexit gun to the country’s head?
Mr Walker
No. I respect the fact that the hon. Lady has always been consistent in her views on this issue; of course, it is right to point out that those views conflict with the promises made in the last Labour manifesto. This Government are very clear—we want this House to be able to vote on a deal, we think that that deal will be in the interests of our country, and we will bringing that deal back to this House to vote on it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
After yesterday’s shenanigans and—let us face it—a total abuse of power by the Executive, all trust in this Government has broken down. So while I believe that the Minister is being sincere, will he, to restore trust, promise to have the Attorney General’s legal advice on section 13 of the withdrawal Act published, and also call for the article 50 clock to be stopped on this process?
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister has to understand that the reason why Members on both sides of the House have little faith in what he is saying is that he keeps answering by saying that with section 13 there will be a vote. The reality is that there was a business motion last week where it was agreed that there would be a vote today, and the Government have reneged on it, which is why we do not trust them. The language that he has been using in answering these questions is extremely important. He said that he hopes for a vote before 21 January, that he hopes for a vote shortly, and that 21 January would be the back end of when he would expect there to be a vote. He clearly knows something, so will he set out now when the vote will come?
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Government are relying on the House trusting them in bringing forward a meaningful vote in the future, but yesterday’s escapades suggest that they are not always dealing from the top of the pack. The Leader of the House came here yesterday and collapsed the business without making any reference to that at all, and it was moved by a Minister of the Government just shouting “Tomorrow”. It would help to restore some of that trust—although that is a very difficult thing for the Government to do—if they were to promise never to do that again in this process and give this House the opportunity to vote on any future changes in the business motion.
Mr Walker
I would gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he is very generous in giving me such wonderful powers to make commitments on behalf of the Government for evermore. I have been clear today about the meaningful vote that this House will have, and clear about our interpretation of section 13 of the withdrawal Act. I think that colleagues across the House should take that very clearly as the Government’s intention as to what we are going to do. I would therefore gently appeal for the trust that he talks about.
Cannabis (Legalisation and Regulation)
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
13:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 52 / Noes: 66 - Question accordingly negatived.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to legalise the possession and consumption of cannabis; to provide for the regulation of the production, distribution and sale of cannabis; and for connected purposes.
Over the past few weeks, three of my constituents have, individually, come to see me to discuss cannabis. All three suffer acute continuing pain. One has fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis and IBS. He had been prescribed Fentanyl, which we know is highly addictive and potentially fatal. He stopped taking it out of fear of the consequences. Cannabis offers him essential pain relief, but he has no option but to buy it illegally. He knows that, at any time, he could face arrest and prosecution. Following the Government’s reforms allowing for the prescribing of cannabis-based products for medicinal use, he went to see his GP to get a prescription. He was told that they—the GPs—were all under instructions not to refer patients to the pain clinic because there is no evidence of therapeutic value. Yet something as dangerous as Fentanyl remains available.
Another constituent, who has rapidly advancing Parkinson’s disease, also uses cannabis. It is the only thing that helps him. He has also been told by his GP that he cannot be referred to a specialist for cannabis to be prescribed. So we leave this man, who is acutely unwell, having to break the law in order to get relief from pain. This is surely cruel and inhuman.
The third man, in his 50s, finds that cannabis is the only thing that offers him respite from pain following an injury to his leg. He has a lifelong allergy to codeine. Other painkillers have caused serious problems with his kidneys. But cannabis works for him. Fearing the risks of buying from a street dealer, he bought some over the internet. He then faced a police raid. Despite my pleas to the police that giving him a criminal record would not be in the public interest, last week he was given a caution. This man has been a law-abiding citizen all his life. He has found this whole thing acutely distressing. He fears that the consequence of the caution is that he will not be able to visit his son in Australia. The treatment of this man is shameful. What is the point of doing this to him? What is the possible public interest?
Across the country, people like my constituent are left with no option but to break the law. The Government’s reforms raised expectations but have dashed hopes for so many people. The approach taken by the Government is so restrictive that the numbers who will benefit are minuscule. If someone is lucky, they might live in an area where the police force takes an enlightened approach. Chief Constable Mike Barton in Durham has effectively decriminalised cannabis for personal use. A recent parliamentary answer I received reveals that, in some areas, prosecutions and cautions have plummeted. Surely we cannot justify this postcode lottery, where two people behaving in exactly the same way are treated differently depending on where they live. One will be forever tarnished with a criminal record, and the other will not. It is clear that the recent reforms are not working, so the Government should look in the round at the harm that prohibition of cannabis is causing across the country and try to come up with a more enlightened approach.
In Canada, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Government have implemented a new legal, regulated market for cannabis for recreational and medicinal use. Their approach is instructive. In June 2016, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Health jointly set out the key principles that should guide reform, including: protecting young people by keeping cannabis out of the hands of children and youth; keeping profits out of the hands of criminals; preventing people from receiving criminal records for simple cannabis possession offences, which reduces the burden on police and the justice system; protecting public health and safety by strengthening the law with respect to serious offences such as selling cannabis to minors and driving under influence; providing support for addiction treatment, mental health support and education programmes to inform people about the risks; and access to quality-controlled cannabis for medicinal purposes. Surely those principles should guide us too. Carrying on as we are has dreadful consequences.
I want to make four key points. First, nowhere across the world has prohibition worked—cannabis is available everywhere. Secondly, people have no idea what they are buying. We know that leaving supply in the hands of criminals puts teenagers in particular at risk. They are most susceptible to suffering mental health consequences, including psychosis, from regular use of potent strains available on the street. The widespread use of those dangerous strains is the result of our failure to regulate. A regulated market would allow Government to control the safety and potency of cannabis sold by legal vendors. Through a misplaced desire to be “tough on drugs”, we leave teenagers vulnerable to exploitation from sellers who have no interest at all in their welfare. Through inaction, Government and Parliament are culpable. If something is potentially dangerous to children and young people, we must control it and regulate it, not leave it freely available from those keen to make a fast buck.
Thirdly, we know that the illegal market for drugs generates extreme violence in many communities, and particularly the most disadvantaged. If a supplier faces competition, they do not resort to the courts to protect their market; they use extreme violence. Thousands of people have lost their lives as a result of illegal trade in drugs in countries such as Mexico, but on the streets of our poorest communities, violence is meted out regularly. Young vulnerable teenagers get caught up in this violent trade and cannot escape. It does not have to be like this.
Fourthly, we still criminalise thousands of people every year, taking up precious police time that could be used to fight serious crime. Careers are blighted for using a substance that no doubt many Members on the Government Benches have used at some stage of their lives. Meanwhile, the most harmful drug of all is consumed in large quantities right here in this building. Alcohol leads to violence on our streets and behind closed doors in people’s homes. It destroys families up and down our country, yet we tax it, and the Exchequer benefits enormously from it. Is there not a dreadful hypocrisy in the fact that we allow our drug of choice, while criminalising people who use another, less dangerous drug, many for the relief of pain?
My Bill offers a more rational alternative to this mess. With strict regulation of the growing, sale and marketing of cannabis, with an age limit of 18 for the purchase and consumption of cannabis and with clear controls over potency of what is sold in licensed outlets, we can at last start to protect children and teenagers. We can at last treat with dignity and respect all those who suffer acute pain or who have conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s and epilepsy. We can end the shameful treatment of these people as criminals.
We can at last end the extraordinary practice of handing billions of pounds every year to organised crime. We can instead start to tax the sale of cannabis, so that revenues can be used for good purpose—public health education, the NHS, schools and the police. We can start to take some of the violence and intimidation off our streets and restore order in our poorest communities, and we can free up police time to focus on serious crime. This is rational, evidence-based policy making. It is time for this country to act on the evidence and to protect children and young people from harm.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
First, I want to pay respect to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for introducing the Bill. He has a long record of campaigning on this important issue, and while I strongly disagree with him, I respect his desire that something be done to address it.
I am sure we can all agree that something needs to be done about the current situation with cannabis use, which is wrong, unsustainable and doing a great deal of damage to our society, but I do not believe that liberalising and decriminalising it in this way is the answer. My view is largely informed by my experience of seeking to help and support people who have been regular users of cannabis. I have seen at first hand the lives that it wrecks, the impact on mental health and the cost to not only the individual but their families, their communities and wider society.
I was slightly confused by the line that the right hon. Gentleman took. He seemed to be confusing medicinal use of cannabis with recreational use. The Government should take great credit for the progress made recently on allowing the medicinal use of cannabis products. That is absolutely right, and I believe it has a great deal of support across the country. I agree that more should be done to ensure that cannabis for medicinal use gets to the people who really need it, and that more needs to be done to get medical professionals on board and adjusted to the new regime. However, the new measures were only introduced a few weeks ago, on 1 November, and we need to allow more time for the changes to come into effect before we take a huge leap of faith towards decriminalising cannabis altogether.
My concern is that, by liberalising cannabis use, we would send precisely the wrong message to our young people. We would be giving them the message that cannabis is safe and okay to use. We need to make very clear that cannabis is a dangerous drug and that there is no safe consumption of cannabis in an uncontrolled, unregulated way. We are clearly in the midst of a war on drugs, but we will not win the war by raising the white flag, giving up and surrendering. No war has ever been won by surrendering.
The impact of regular cannabis use on mental health has been well established. There is strong evidence to demonstrate that frequent use of cannabis is linked to the inducement of psychosis. One study in south London revealed a threefold increase in the risk of individuals having a psychotic disorder among regular cannabis users compared with those who do not use cannabis.
In recent years, we have seen a steady reduction in the use of cannabis: over the past 20 years, it has declined by 30%. YouGov polling conducted this year indicates that legislation could significantly disturb this overall downward trend. Over a quarter of people under 25 who have never tried cannabis indicated that they would definitely try it, or be likely to try it, if it were legalised. That is over 1 million 18 to 24-year-olds. Of those who have used cannabis before, well over a third of 18 to 24-year-olds said that they would be more likely to use it more regularly if it were decriminalised.
I believe that legislation would send the very wrong message to our young people that cannabis is okay to use. I think we all understand that for many people the use of cannabis is a gateway drug to more serious and more damaging drug use. It would be absolutely wrong to send the message that somehow cannabis is okay, because of where that would lead for many people. As with most laws, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is adhered to by the vast majority of people, but it is ignored by some. We must not forget that the current law deters a great many from drug use, which serves a very important public interest.
However, this is no endorsement of the status quo. We all have at least some common ground. It is intolerable to see our young people hurting themselves or ending their lives prematurely because of the effects of this dangerous drug. Our approach must be bolder. We must offer more meaningful support and aim to drive down consumption yet further. This will not be achieved by a new website or a helpline. We need to intervene and challenge, using experts in the field of drug use, recovered addicts and recovering users, who can reach out and offer a real prospect of change for users.
A procedure that replaces the current system of issuing a relatively ineffectual warning or punitive fine given by a police officer with the alternative of offering diversion through attendance at a local drugs awareness day would have a greater impact in reducing use. Part of what is currently charged as a fixed penalty notice could instead go to local treatment providers to pay for such a service.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in Canada. Interestingly, on the eve of the legislation being introduced in Canada, an article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal called the legislation
“a national, uncontrolled experiment in which the profits of cannabis producers and tax revenues are squarely pitched against the health of Canadians.”
Yes, we can learn from experiments taking place elsewhere, but we do not need to risk the lives of some of our most vulnerable residents in doing so.
This is one of the many substances that plague our communities and rob both young and old—and, predominantly, the most disadvantaged—of a full life. We must commit to doing more, to having a person-centric approach, to showing compassion, yet keep the decisiveness of the criminal law in intervening when the public interest demands. I accept that there is a trend in other nations to legalise cannabis, but the evidence at this stage is still very mixed.
Decriminalisation is at best a risky step for us to take. While I understand the desire for something to be done to address this issue, I do not believe that liberalisation in this way is right for our country at this time. We need to do better for our young people, but giving up the war on cannabis is not the way to achieve it. I cannot support this Bill, and if the House does divide on this issue, I will vote against it. I encourage other Members to join me in not allowing this Bill to progress.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 0 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Prime Minister’s unprecedented decision not to proceed with the final two days of debate and the meaningful vote, despite the House’s Order of Tuesday 4 December 2018, and her failure to allow this House to express its view on the Government’s deal or her proposed negotiating objectives, without the agreement of this House.
I have had the privilege of serving this House for 35 years, and I have had strong disagreements with every Prime Minister who has served in that time—it is all there on the record—but I have never, in all those years, witnessed such an abject mess as this Prime Minister is making of these crucial Brexit negotiations and in presenting her deal to the House. Most Prime Ministers lose votes and get things wrong, but yesterday she demeaned her office by unilaterally taking her discredited deal off the table and running away, rather than facing the verdict of this House. We should have been voting on it today. There is nothing wrong with standing by your principles, but this deal is not one of principle—or apparently not one that she is prepared to stand by, anyway. Yesterday the Government did not even have the decency to allow a vote on withdrawing the business. The Prime Minister let down all MPs and the people we represent, on both sides of this House, the overwhelming majority of whom know that this deal is dead and want to get on with putting a realistic solution in place.
I want to thank my colleagues in the Labour party who supported the application for the debate yesterday, and colleagues in all the other opposition parties who supported it, and indeed Conservative Members, on both sides of the debate, in order to ensure that a vote could take place.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the frequency with which the Government hold this Parliament in contempt, and the ease with which they mislead the British public, is frankly appalling and pathetic? [Interruption.] It is true. It is now alleged on BuzzFeed that the Prime Minister told top EU officials that she intended to pull the Brexit vote 24 hours before she told senior Cabinet members. Does my right hon. Friend agree—
Mr Speaker
Order. I had wanted the hon. Gentleman to complete his intervention. I remind the House that interventions should be brief, not mini speeches, because there is a lot to get through and 32 Members want to contribute after the principal speakers.
Jeremy Corbyn
That news is very disturbing indeed. The House should be told first—not the media, not anybody else.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is not just BuzzFeed that reported that, but the Daily Mirror. I myself have been told that the Prime Minister spoke to a number of EU member states and officials before she spoke to the Cabinet and the House to say that the vote would be cancelled. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what I have been told is shocking: that apparently the addendum the Prime Minister is now seeking was drafted weeks ago, before we even started the debate in this House?
Jeremy Corbyn
The whole process gets curiouser and curiouser, Mr Speaker. This is no longer a functioning Government and the Prime Minister must admit her deal is dead. Her shambolic negotiations have ended in failure and she no longer has the authority to negotiate for this country when she does not even have the authority of her own party.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does the Leader of the Opposition not accept that it is rather strange for the Opposition to criticise the Prime Minister for not seeking clarity on the backstop but then, when she does go to Brussels to do just that, criticise her for that very action?
Jeremy Corbyn
I am absolutely full of admiration for the hon. Member’s ability to keep a straight face while she asked that question.
Parliament may not have had the chance to vote down the Prime Minister’s deal, but if she had put it before the House I think we all know it would have been defeated by a very significant margin indeed.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just that the Prime Minister let down the House and our constituents? Taxpayers have been paying the price, with reports that £100,000 was spent in the past week on Facebook advertisements supporting her deal. Her Ministers were sent around the country, and all of us have spent time and resources consulting our constituents. We have all been let down. We have not been able to express our view and their view in a vote in this House.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister has indeed wasted £100,000 of public money in just seven days on Facebook adverts trying, and failing, to sell this dog’s dinner of a Brexit deal. There were days when both the Prime Minister and I served as local councillors. Had we spent public money in that way, we would have been surcharged for a waste of public money without proper approval.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is of course right: the Government are an absolute shambles. They have failed the country and they are in contempt of Parliament. Will he not do the right thing now and table a motion of no confidence in the Government, so that we can be shot of them?
Jeremy Corbyn
I have tabled this motion today, which the hon. Gentleman supported. We have no confidence in the Government. We need to do the appropriate thing at the appropriate time—have a motion of no confidence to get rid of this Government.
The Prime Minister not only failed to convince the public; she now seems unable to convince the European Union to accept any meaningful changes to her proposals.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
If the right hon. Gentleman followed the debate, he will have noticed that he had complaints about the backstop, as did most of the 164 speakers. Is it therefore not right for the Prime Minister to go and see if she can mend it? If he disagrees with that, why?
Jeremy Corbyn
I thought that was a really valiant attempt to defend the indefensible. It is utterly ludicrous. Everyone knew the date the vote was going to be put. The whole world knew about it. We now hear that apparently the Prime Minister was trying to arrange some backroom deal ahead of it and then pulled the vote, but she did not bother to tell an awful lot of other people that she was doing so. I do admire the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s attempts at defending what is completely indefensible.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Last week the Government were found to be in contempt of Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the media were briefed before this House, that is further contempt for this Parliament?
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister cancelled the Cabinet meeting this morning—presumably she is worried about whether she has a majority there or not—and apparently many of her Ministers are very upset. I cannot say I blame them. At least a dozen were sent into TV and radio stations yesterday morning to deny the Prime Minister would pull the vote, before somebody helpfully phoned from Downing Street to pull them out of the studios to say the line had changed. That is an extraordinary way of not running a Government. The Northern Ireland Secretary was quoted as saying that the UK must move on with Brexit or risk being riven with division, shortly before the Prime Minister decided not to move on with Brexit. This is the same Prime Minister who said hers was the best deal and the only deal. If that is the case, what is she doing today in Europe?
This runaway Prime Minister is not even seeking to negotiate. She confirmed that she is only seeking reassurances. Our Prime Minister is traipsing around the continent in pursuit and search of warm words—when she can get out of the car to hear them. It really is, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, the unspeakable in pursuit of the unwritten—a waste of time and a waste of public money. Because of her own unworkable red lines, the European Commission says it will not renegotiate with her. The Prime Minister also concedes that she is not negotiating either, so what on earth is she doing travelling from capital to capital in Europe? I am sure it cannot be Christmas shopping, so what on earth is she doing in Europe? Worse than that, it shows that once again she is simply not listening.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
In ensuring the integrity of our Union, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only way we can deal with the backstop is to amend the legally binding text of an international agreement?
Jeremy Corbyn
The red lines the Prime Minister set out on the backstop became impossible. Because of her bungled negotiations, there is a greater chance of entering into an indefinite backstop. That is one of the reasons why we would vote against it, as I believe the hon. Gentleman would.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
There are legitimate concerns about the Northern Ireland backstop, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only the backstop that is a problem with this deal? Can he remember a time in British history when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor recommended a course of action that, like their deal, would make people worse off according to their own analysis?
Jeremy Corbyn
I cannot recall a time when any Government have come to the House to promise something that will make people worse off and then blindly continue to go ahead with it. It is not only the backstop that is a problem. Many will not vote for a blindfold Brexit on the basis of a 26-page wish list attached to it. It fails to guarantee the frictionless trade that the Prime Minister promised. It fails to maintain our membership of vital agencies and programmes. It fails to ensure that our rights and protections will be kept in place. It fails to provide a comprehensive customs union with a UK say. On the latter point, I welcome the endorsement of a permanent customs union by former Brexit Minister Lord Bridges, who said that it could be the basis for a parliamentary consensus.
Yesterday, following her statement, the Prime Minister failed to answer a single one of my questions, so last night I wrote to her, together with the leaders of the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. We set out five questions to the Prime Minister. Sadly, she is not here to answer them. Therefore, Mr Speaker, when she returns from her strange stage-managed foray to Europe, I hope she will reply promptly to the five Opposition parties who wrote to her.
While the Prime Minister sends our country into Brexit-induced paralysis, the coming winter threatens the deepest crisis in our NHS. Homelessness and rough sleeping continue their unrelenting rise. The local government funding settlement is delayed yet again, meaning our very hard-hit councils cannot start budgeting for next year and neither can the police—facing rising violent crime because their funding settlement is delayed, too. Another Government contractor, we learn, is at risk, and thousands of jobs, too, as Interserve teeters on the brink of collapse; and all the while, the economy is slowing—high streets in crisis, shares tumbling, the pound plummeting. This is not strong and stable government—it is weak leadership from a weak Prime Minister.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Some people say that talk of poverty and food banks is a distraction from Brexit. Given the impact on food prices, does not my right hon. Friend think that actually, it is the central issue?
Jeremy Corbyn
Poverty is the central issue in this country. As the UN report pointed out, 14 million of our fellow citizens are living in poverty. More will be rough sleepers than for many, many years over this Christmas, and we have hundreds of thousands of children living in insecure, temporary accommodation, many of them very hungry over this Christmas. That is not a good look and we should be having a Government who are concentrated on reducing the levels of poverty in this country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £100,000 given to Facebook—spent on Brexit advertising—by the Government could have been given to all our constituencies to alleviate food poverty?
Jeremy Corbyn
Indeed; £100,000 would help a lot of food banks get more food in order that the hungry can get something to eat.
If the Prime Minister comes back with nothing more than warm words, then she must immediately put her deal to the House—no more delays, no more tricks; let Parliament take control. If not, then frankly she must go. We cannot tolerate delay any longer. With a legally enshrined exit date of 29 March 2019, just over 100 days away, we cannot allow this shambles to endure, and neither can we risk falling into a no deal.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
In addition to the farce that was facing the country yesterday, one of the biggest consequences will be the impact that this has on the 22,000 EU nationals living in my constituency. The settled scheme status is still being developed. The Home Office app for registration has been branded absolutely “useless” by academics. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the limbo facing this House will have great, distressing consequences for our EU nationals in our constituencies?
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and compliment her on the work that she does on behalf of her constituents. All of us represent EU nationals, some in greater numbers than others. We all know the horror and stress that they have been through over the past two and a half years—the stress where one partner comes from one part of Europe and the other from Britain, and the stress on those children is huge—which is why, straight after the referendum, on our behalf, Andy Burnham moved from this Dispatch Box a motion guaranteeing permanent rights of residence for all EU nationals. That was agreed on a non-binding motion. Two and a half years later, we still have not had the absolute legal certainty from this Government on the protection of those EU nationals. They deserve it, and we also need to recognise that they have made a massive contribution to our economy, to our way of life, to our health service and to all our public services. We should thank them for it and assure them that they have a permanent place in this country, whatever the outcome of these particular rounds of talks.
We will work across this House to prevent any further damage to our economy, to our international standing and to our democracy, so I say to the limited number of Government Back Benchers opposite: let Parliament have a say on this shabby deal. Let Parliament take back control of it, because this Government have lost the ability to lead, the ability to negotiate and the ability to speak for this House in those negotiations.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
The Leader of the Opposition spent most of his speech attacking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think it is perhaps worth reminding him and the House that in the last two months alone, my right hon. Friend has spent more than 22 hours at this Dispatch Box making statements and answering questions from right hon. and hon. Members in every corner of this House, predominantly about the question of EU exit—[Interruption.]—and the deal that she negotiated. She has made, in that time alone, six full oral statements dedicated to that subject and opened the debate in this House on 4 December—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There will be plenty of opportunity for other hon. and right hon. Members to speak in the debate, and indeed, to seek to intervene, but the Minister for the Cabinet Office must be heard.
Mr Lidington
I think anybody who has observed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in action, both in her current office and in the other offices she has held over the years, will be in no doubt about her commitment to parliamentary accountability, whatever the cost to her in terms of the time that you, Mr Speaker, rightly say that she should be spending—and she accepts that she should spend—in answering questions from colleagues in every party in every corner of this House.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I think that nobody doubts how much effort the Prime Minister has put into the entire process of Brexit, but in the end, what matters to people outside here is not effort but results. This House ought to have the chance to vote on those results.
Mr Lidington
As I shall say shortly, this House will indeed have that opportunity.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
After all the debate, what the businesses, farmers and consumers—all the people in my constituency—want to know is when this matter is going to be resolved. It would have been resolved tonight had we had that vote. What date will we have this vote?
Mr Lidington
What the businesses and farmers whom I have talked to in Wales, and in my constituency and many other parts of the country, have said is that they want hon. Members from every political party to get behind the deal and get it in place as rapidly as possible, so that they can have the certainty and clarity of the transitional period and can plan investment and job creation decisions that are currently being held while that uncertainty prevails.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while the Prime Minister may have had plenty of time to speak about this, we have not? We did have 15 hours of debate in which we could have presented the case for our constituents—for me, that includes the university sector, the automobile sector and the science sector. Two Ministers have gone who used to cover those portfolios because they can now see the effect that this is going to have. Does he not understand the intense frustration on the Opposition side with this Government, who will not let us speak up for our constituents?
Mr Lidington
For the reasons that I have already set out, there have been many hours already, including the three days so far of debate on the meaningful vote, in which Members of Parliament from all parts of the House have been able to express those views.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lidington
I will give way to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), from the Scottish National party, then I will make progress.
Pete Wishart
It is always good to see the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box, but perhaps he can explain exactly what the Prime Minister is doing. She has heard what the EU leaders have told us; they are not prepared to negotiate this deal. Should not this Prime Minister, the worst dancing queen in history, come back here and face her Waterloo?
Mr Lidington
Ah, the hon. Gentleman has been crafting that one for quite a time, I can see. He asked what my right hon. Friend is doing. The answer is that she is responding to the points made to her again and again by Members of this House, because in the statements and the exchanges that followed, and in the debates that we have had so far, hon. Members have expressed criticisms, usually focused—not exclusively, but for the most part—on one issue: the so-called backstop on the Irish border. Again and again, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have asked her to go back to EU member states and the Commission to seek changes, and in particular, to provide assurances that the backstop would only be temporary. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend has done.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It was very clear from the first three days of debate—colleagues have not been backwards in making themselves available to the media as well to say how much they disagree with the deal—that the House was not going to pass it, so surely the Prime Minister has done exactly the right thing in going back to Europe to get a better deal to put to the House in due course.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend puts it well. As I have said, the Prime Minister is responding to the wish expressed by many Members of the House.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman and I both entered the House at the same time, and I doubt that either of us has been in a situation quite as dangerous and fraught as this. Surely he will agree that, after yesterday, the Prime Minister has shredded her credibility and that many people on both sides of the House now find it almost impossible to believe a word she says. She asserts one thing one day and the opposite the day after. She sends her Cabinet out to assert that the vote is going ahead even as she is planning to pull it. Surely he must understand that we cannot go on with this Prime Minister at the helm.
Mr Lidington
No, I reject that completely. Let us look back over the last week. My right hon. Friend returned from the G20 in Argentina the Sunday before last; she gave a statement to the House on the Monday; then she both led the debate on the meaningful vote and listened to the many interventions made; and then, as well as paying attention to what was said in the House on subsequent days, she talked to a number of Members from different political parties and came to the decision over the weekend that she announced to the House yesterday.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
Is the problem not now that Ministers do not know themselves whether they are telling the truth to the House of Commons because they are not being told the truth by the Prime Minister? This is now a question of trust, and that is why the DUP is not supporting the Government. It is not just a question of policy detail; it is a question of breaking trust. Ministers do not even know any more when they are telling the truth.
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend convened the Cabinet by telephone conference yesterday morning to tell all members of the Cabinet about the decision she had come to, and the Cabinet agreed to support and endorse that decision.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that Members had asked for assurances about the backstop. Will he accept, even at this late stage, that assurances will not suffice? Unless there is a fundamental alteration to the text of the withdrawal agreement and to the advice given by the Attorney General himself, it simply will not suffice.
Mr Lidington
I am in no doubt about the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman and his DUP colleagues. He will understand that I am not going to prejudge the outcome of the conversations the Prime Minister is having with other European leaders, but she made it clear yesterday that nothing was ruled out in those conversations.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the deputy Prime Minister agree that had we had the vote today, he would have known the views not of a few Members but of the House? Would that not have strengthened the Prime Minister’s negotiating position, as she could have gone back and said that the House had rejected the proposal?
Mr Lidington
As she said yesterday, the Prime Minister was in no doubt, having listened to the debate, read Hansard and held direct conversations with Members of Parliament across the House, as to what the outcome was going to be.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It seems to me that we have two options—either a Parliament like the European Parliament, where everything is agreed in advance and what someone says in the Chamber does not affect anybody’s opinion or change anything, or a Parliament like this Parliament, where debate is dynamic and Ministers listen to what is said. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a better place to be?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) reminded us that she and I had been here for a few years now. I have sat through exchange after exchange in this Chamber—with each main party, at different times, in opposition or in government—where the demand has been that Ministers respond to the debate in the House and the calls made upon them, yet when my right hon. Friend does that, the clamour of criticism increases further.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Speaker
Order. An enormous amount of noisy burbling is being directed at the Minister by right hon. and hon. Members. I have known him for 21 years in the House, and for a decade or so before that, and in my experience he is an unfailingly courteous Minister, and he must be heard.
Mr Lidington
I have given way a fair number of times. I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends, and many hon. Members opposite, are seeking to intervene, and I will try to give way further, but I am conscious, Mr Speaker, that you told us that more than 30 Members wanted to take part in this debate. I will therefore make some progress, and then I will look for an opportunity to give way again.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and many other Members on both sides of the House have made the point that the House wishes to bring this matter to a head and to have a definitive vote, and of course it is a requirement under the EU withdrawal Act that a meaningful vote take place before the Government are able to ratify any deal with the EU—a deal in the form of a withdrawal agreement under article 50 of the treaty on European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lidington
I want to reiterate what I think the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), made clear earlier this afternoon: the remaining stages of this debate and the votes have not been cancelled; they have been deferred. The business of the House motion that governs the debate, including the amendment successfully moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), also remains in force. The terms of that business of the House motion could be changed only if the House itself either amended the motion or passed a new motion to supersede the one currently in place.
Mr Francois
My procedure is a bit rusty, but am I right in saying that the motion as drafted can be amended only by a Minister of the Crown? If the Government wanted to put back the vote because the Prime Minister wanted more time to go to Europe—admittedly, she has only had two years—the honourable thing the Government should have done yesterday was come to the House, table a revised business motion to put the vote back, say, one week, argue to the House why they needed that extra time, and then put the motion to the vote. That would have been the honourable way to proceed. Why did the Government not do that?
Mr Lidington
While it might be for the Government to table any amendment to the business of the House motion, of course such an amendment would carry only if the House as a whole voted to approve it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lidington
If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I will try to answer his question.
Mr Lidington
I am trying to answer my right hon. Friend’s question. Just as the business of the House motion that currently governs the debate was open for debate and was then approved by the House in order for it to take effect, those provisions would also apply to any subsequent change in the terms of that motion, so it would be a matter for the House as a whole.
As for my right hon. Friend’s second point, we do not know for certain at this stage what the outcome of the talks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is having today with other European leaders will be, or what the discussions and conclusions may be of the European Council that is scheduled to take place later this week. The judgment that we have made as a Government is that in those circumstances, it would be right to come to the House as soon as we have that certainty.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lidington
I want to make it clear that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday and as the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), said earlier today in response to the urgent question, the Government will bring the debate and vote back to the House by 21 January at the very latest. As my hon. Friend said during the exchanges that followed his response to the urgent question, we see that date as a deadline and not as a target.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lidington
I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), because he has been trying to intervene for a long time.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving way. As he knows, I have a lot of respect for him, and he has a tough gig today.
The reason for this postponement and delay is, of course, so that the Prime Minister can go away and negotiate some magic piece of paper. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether any member of the Cabinet had seen or discussed a draft of the addendum or codicil that the Prime Minister is seeking at any point in the last few weeks before she decided to postpone the debate?
Mr Lidington
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind words, but, as he will understand, I am certainly not going to talk about the discussions that take place during Cabinet meetings.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am slightly confused by what the deputy Prime Minister is saying. He seems to be suggesting that we will be restarting the old debate. Presumably that means that none of the Members who have already spoken will speak again and that all the elements of the business of the House motion that we have already carried will continue; but surely to God, we must do that before Christmas. We cannot let this roll on and on while businesses are wasting time, money and energy making plans for something that may not come to pass.
Mr Lidington
I will go this far with the hon. Gentleman: my view, and the Government’s view, is that we need to push on with this sooner rather than later, but that we need to know the outcome of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is having before we determine the exact timing of those future days of debate. Let me also reiterate that, as both the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester have said to the House, the Government regard the obligation, in the event of no deal being agreed, to make a statement in line with section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act as a solemn commitment that still stands.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that greater than the political crisis that has been created is the economic crisis? Already, in the last 24 hours, 2% has been knocked off the value of the pound. Is that not a reason to press ahead with the vote?
Mr Lidington
I am second to no one in wanting this issue to be resolved as rapidly as possible.
Emma Reynolds
Why will the Government not rule out no deal, given the catastrophic impact that it would have on businesses, jobs and people’s livelihoods? If he will not rule it out, will he tell us how much more taxpayers’ money is going into planning for no deal because of the delay that has been caused by the Government and the lack of a vote today?
Mr Lidington
It cannot be ruled out, because the removal of no deal from the table requires the ratification of a deal of some kind at Westminster, and it requires ratification by the European Parliament as well. Just as any business would expect to maintain contingency plans for all eventualities, even unwelcome and unlikely ones, the Government have a responsibility to maintain their contingency planning against that eventuality.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The truth is that this is not an isolated incident but a pattern of behaviour. Parliament has been frustrated and blocked at every turn. Whether the issue was the role that Parliament would take in the debate and deliberations, the legal advice that we consider in making that decision or our having a vote at all, Parliament has been frustrated at every step. If there is to be a continuation of the debate that has already taken place, it will mean that whatever change is made and whatever format is adopted, I will not be able to debate it on behalf of my constituents, because I took part in the debate last week. How can that be right and fair?
Mr Lidington
As I have said, the Government, and the Prime Minister personally, have been extremely committed to this, which can be demonstrated by the number of hours that have been spent in Parliament discussing these issues and responding to questions.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about the value of the pound. Some of them are becoming quite interested in economics all of a sudden. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one reason why the value of the pound has been falling is the sniff of a Labour Government, which would see capital flight from this country as we have never seen it before? Even the sniff of it is a foretaste of what would happen if the Leader of the Opposition ever got his hands on No. 10.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is right, and he is not the only one to express that fear. It is an opinion voiced strongly by businesses large and small in every part of the United Kingdom. The thought of a Labour Government who saw the economic policies of Cuba and Venezuela as models to follow should scare anyone who is interested in jobs and investment in this country.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has been asked this question twice, but he has not answered it. I will give him a third chance. Is the Government’s proposition that when we return to this, the previous debate will continue—in other words, there will be two more days and then we will have a vote—or is there to be a fresh debate? Which is it going to be?
Mr Lidington
It is a fair question, and while I am not able to give the right hon. Gentleman an absolutely clear answer, I genuinely want to be as helpful as I can on this point. The default position is that the current arrangements, including the business of the House motion, remain in place. One of the things that the Government will have to determine, depending on the outcome of the European Council and the discussions that the Prime Minister is having, is whether, in the context of the statutory requirement for the Government to hold a meaningful vote under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, any changes that may have been made are of a character that requires the debate to be started from scratch rather than continued. Until we know the outcome of those talks, it is impossible for me to provide greater clarity, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept from me that that is the best answer I can give in trying to be straight with him.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is being extremely generous with his time. Can he confirm that, because the vote has now been deferred, the immigration White Paper, which we have been promised since the summer, will be in front of Members before we vote on this matter?
Mr Lidington
Obviously it will depend to a considerable extent on when the debate and vote on Europe come back to the House, but I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about this again today, and he says that he expects to be in a position to publish the White Paper very soon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Lidington
I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but then I will make some progress
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman—he is being very generous. A moment ago, he said that the only way to take the risk of no deal off the table was to ratify the deal. I know that he is a very honest man. Surely he must acknowledge that there is a third way as a result of yesterday’s decision by the European Court of Justice, namely to revoke the article 50 notice. He may not wish to do that, but surely he will acknowledge that theoretically it is a third way to avoid the possibility of no deal.
Mr Lidington
The hon. and learned Lady is right: in the wake of the court’s decision, that is a legal and constitutional possibility. But the Prime Minister made it clear again yesterday that it is not the Government’s policy, and indeed not just my party but the Labour party committed last year to respect the result of the 2016 referendum.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
While this debate is interesting, it is ultimately futile in having an impact on public policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Leader of the Opposition really believes things to be as bad and rotten as Labour says they are, it is surprising that we are not here today debating a vote of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, rather than faffing around with a Standing Order No. 24 debate?
Mr Lidington
That is a very reasonable question, but it is not for me to answer it; as I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition has the right to respond briefly at the conclusion of this debate, and he might well seize the opportunity to give my hon. Friend the answer he seeks.
When the debate and vote come back to this House, the whole House will have to face up to some choices, because the decision in 2016 that this country should leave the EU has consequences. The idea, which still persists in some circles, that we can have all of the benefits of EU membership without accepting the obligations that go with it is a fantasy. Hon. Members in all parts of the House need to face up to that, and I suggest that it is a truth known to any Opposition Member who has either negotiated within the EU while serving as a Minister or worked for one of the European institutions.
When the Leader of the Opposition responds to this debate, I hope he will use the opportunity to explain in greater detail something about his own position. At the moment he asserts that he wishes for a comprehensive and permanent customs union between this country and the EU, with a British say in future trade deals—a wish that, however desirable, cuts across central elements of the European treaties, most notably the common commercial policy. He asserts that we should use the transitional period to renegotiate the deal, dismissing the reality that the transitional period does not exist unless and until the deal has been ratified.
The right hon. Gentleman says he would solve the issue of the backstop with a customs union for the whole of the United Kingdom, disregarding the fact that that would not solve it because the need for common regulatory standards would remain. He argues that we should have a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU without any commitment to EU state aid rules, but member states and the Commission could not have been clearer that that runs contrary to the most fundamental principles of the European treaties and of the practice and policy of successive Councils and Commissions over the years.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I think it needs to be recorded that if any Member of this House deserves the highest recognition, it has to be him, because he has consistently come to the Dispatch Box and made his case eloquently and powerfully. I gently say to him, however, that he is right that we need to be honest about the choices our country faces, but the problem is that we are only having that debate now, at the end of the process, instead of at the beginning. I remind him of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who said from the Dispatch Box two years ago when he was Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that he was confident he would negotiate a deal that would convey the “exact same benefits” that we currently enjoy as a member of the single market and customs union. That is the problem: too many broken promises, too many promises that cannot be delivered.
Mr Lidington
That is why, when the House comes to debate these matters again and vote on them, every Member, whichever side of the House they sit on and whichever party or part of the country they represent, must be aware that if they vote to reject the deal the Prime Minister has negotiated, they will also need to judge what alternative would both be negotiable with the EU and command a majority here.
I have to say that colleagues of mine and Opposition Members who have expressed strong views on European matters need to understand some home truths. Some have urged that we should simply press ahead, leave without any deal and move straightaway to WTO terms. Hon. Members attracted by that option, perhaps on grounds of sovereignty, need to weigh the political attractiveness to them of that option against the fact that trade on WTO terms would do serious harm to our automotive, aerospace and agricultural sectors among others, and that at worst a sudden severing of preferential trade access in less than four months’ time would be hugely disruptive and harmful to our economy, with a direct cost in jobs and investment.
Those who advocate, by contrast, a different model for our future relations, whether Norway and the customs union or a Canada-style classic free trade agreement with the EU, have to address the reality that a withdrawal agreement covering citizens’ rights, a financial settlement and the question of the Irish border is an unavoidable gateway to negotiations on any of those outcomes. Because there will be a risk, whether large or small, of a gap between the end of the transitional period and the new partnership coming into effect, a backstop—an insurance policy of some kind for the Irish border—will also be an unavoidable part of such a withdrawal agreement.
Then there are those who urge a second referendum in the hope of reversing the decision of 2016. I have come to terms with the decision the people took, although I think the whole House knows that I hugely regretted it at the time. Those who champion a second referendum have to confront the fact that such an outcome would certainly be divisive but could not guarantee to be decisive in ending this debate. Further still, colleagues who champion that approach should not underestimate the damage that would be done to what is already fragile public confidence in our democratic institutions.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is determined to do everything in her power to secure the safeguards and assurances for which so many right hon. and hon. Members have called, and, as at every step in these negotiations, she is motivated by the national interest and by nothing else.
When we know the outcome of the talks now under way, the Government will bring the debate and the decision back to Parliament. At that point not only the Government but the House—every Member here—will have to confront the hard but inescapable choices that face our country today.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington). Those 35 minutes were a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this necessary debate. What we witnessed yesterday was an act of pathetic cowardice by the Prime Minister. She is more focused on saving her own job and her own party than on doing what is right for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She is a Prime Minister who is intent on railroading through a deal that will make people poorer. She promised that she would take back control, but this is a Government who are out of control. They are out of their depth and increasingly running out of time.
Back in 2014, Scotland was promised the strength and security of the United Kingdom, but instead we have been treated with contempt and left with a Westminster Government in chaos and crisis. The Prime Minister promised an equal partnership, but instead she has silenced and sidelined the will of the Scottish people, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. Last week, this Government were found to be in contempt of Parliament. Yesterday, the Prime Minister proved that her Government had no respect for Members of this place and continued to show her utter contempt for Parliament as she pulled the meaningful vote from beneath our feet. Why did she do this?
This Prime Minister has denied Parliament the right to debate and vote on her deal because she knows something that we knew weeks ago—namely, that her deal is dead in the water. It is a non-starter. She has lost the confidence of those on her own Benches. Today, we should have voted on the Government’s motion, voting down the Prime Minister’s deal and signalling that this House had no appetite for it. That would have allowed Parliament to move on, and to make the point that there are alternatives to the Prime Minister’s plans and that we could stay in the European Union, particularly given the fact that all the scenarios in the UK Government’s own analysis show that we will always be worse off with Brexit. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who has shown her contempt of Parliament. Our right to vote down her plans have been removed on the whim of the Prime Minister. Where is the parliamentary democracy that we hear about? The decision that Parliament voted for to have a meaningful vote has been withdrawn on the say-so of the Prime Minister, but we do not live in a dictatorship.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, like mine, view these proceedings with amazed misunderstanding and shock. Does he agree that the failure to hold the vote today, and the continuing delay in getting a vote, are dangerous for this institution and its standing? Let me go slightly further and suggest that this is also dangerous for the proper working of democracy in the UK.
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I know that many businesses throughout the highlands and islands are saying that they are particularly worried about their ability to attract labour. We benefit from the free movement of people, and the economic prosperity of the highlands of Scotland has been endangered by the wilful actions of this Government.
Seema Malhotra
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that yesterday’s decision by the Prime Minister impacted not only on this House but on the markets and our economy? Investors have said that the pound experienced its worst day since the 2016 referendum, and that the Government had
“left investors completely in the dark about what happens next”.
Others went on to say that the delay was
“kicking the can further down the road”,
and that
“we would not be surprised if Brexit uncertainty—which we estimate has knocked 0.5 percentage points off growth since the referendum—starts to weigh more heavily on the economy.”
We can take this directly to the Prime Minister’s door.
Ian Blackford
I have to say to the hon. Lady that we should reflect carefully on what has happened over the past two and a half years. The pound fell right after the Brexit referendum, and it has been under pressure ever since. We know that the UK has fallen to the bottom of the G7 growth league over the course of the last couple of years, and that inflation has been higher. We also know that there has been an impact on people’s pockets, and that households are already an average of £600 worse off as a consequence. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to take the right actions to deliver sustainable economic growth. When the Government know, from each piece of analysis that they have conducted for all the scenarios, that people are going to be poorer under Brexit, they have a responsibility to be honest with people about the risks involved.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his powerful speech. Does he agree that the most disgraceful and despicable thing about what the Prime Minister has done by interrupting our consideration of her plans is that yet again she has not taken the opportunity to reach out across the House to listen to people and to revise those plans, and that she has instead engaged in a sordid exercise to placate the ultra-right wing of her own party?
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is spot on. The Prime Minister has missed opportunity after opportunity to take on the extreme Brexiteers in her own party. Let us go back to the time when she called the general election and came back with a minority Administration. She had a responsibility at that time to seek to work across the House and to work with the devolved institutions. At no point has she sought to do those things. The reason that we are in this situation, and that the Government are facing such a heavy defeat, is that they have placated nobody, and that is because of a lack of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I want to make some progress, because I am aware that many people want to speak.
The Prime Minister should not have the ability simply to halt proceedings in the middle of a five-day debate. Our constituents and the rest of the world must be looking on aghast at what took place here yesterday. We now know that we might not get to vote on these substantive matters until 21 January—the last conceivable date for such a vote. The Prime Minister is trying to make this a binary choice between her deal and no deal. That is unacceptable and this House cannot let that happen. The Prime Minister cannot succeed. This is a complete dereliction of duty. Running scared from the truth, this Government have backed themselves into a corner and are refusing to take a road out. The Scottish National party has been firm: our position is that we want to remain in the European Union. We want to continue to enjoy the socio-economic benefits of working in partnership with nations right across the continent. We respect the fact that England and Wales voted to leave the European Union, but we ask the Government to respect the fact that Scotland did not.
It is now more notable than ever that this Government do not care about respecting the will of the people of Scotland. They do not care that £1,600 will be lost from the pockets of people across our country, that 80,000 jobs will be put at risk, or that our businesses, farmers and fishermen will be put at a differential disadvantage. The Tories think they can do whatever they want with Scotland and get away with it. Had the SNP been able to vote on the Prime Minister’s deal today, we would have voted it down. This deal will rob our country not just of economic opportunity but of stability. We in the SNP cannot countenance that. I want to put the Prime Minister on notice that the SNP will not, today or any other day, back her deal or any other deal that makes Scotland poorer.
While the Prime Minister travels around Europe today, she will be scrambling for fluff, for padding and for eloquent phrasing to appease those in her own party who are anxious about parliamentary sovereignty. They are not anxious about the economic future of the nations and regions of the UK. This is still a Tory battle of ideological motivations. Two years down the road, the Tories are sleepwalking into the abyss. They are fighting among themselves, distracted by rhetoric and avoiding reality. Fuelled by a desire to win the hearts and minds of her colleagues, the Prime Minister focuses her efforts on uniting her divided party rather than on protecting the rights and livelihoods of citizens across the country. This is an absolute mess, and the stakes are high.
Let us not lose sight of what is at risk. The eyes of the world are on this place. World leaders, our constituents, businesses and others watch on, holding their heads in their hands. It is incumbent on us all—each Member of Parliament here today—to recognise the severity of what has taken place over the past few weeks. We have a Prime Minister who inadvertently misled Parliament, who has been found in contempt of Parliament and who has snatched away Parliament’s right to vote, silencing our voices to save herself from the shackles of defeat.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman accuses the Prime Minister of ignoring Parliament. Yet has not she done the opposite? She has listened to the views expressed across the House, heard that there is disagreement with the proposed deal and therefore gone away to try to change it. She has listened to and respected, not ignored the House.
Ian Blackford
I am almost lost for words. The hon. Gentleman does not accept that the House voted for a meaningful vote, the Government introduced the timetable for it, yet the Prime Minister disrespected Parliament.
We have reached a critical point. It is crystal clear that the Prime Minister is focused on running down the clock. Rather than buying time, she wants to run out of time. Her strategy now seems to be to present a binary option—her deal or no deal. That is not the case before us. Let me be clear: the Prime Minister has options, but she will not take them. She has checked out of listening mode. Despite facing resounding defeat, she is burying her head in the sand. We cannot let her. We cannot stand for this treatment. The Government cannot be allowed to treat this place with contempt.
That is why I wrote to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), alongside Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrat and Green colleagues, to urge him to table a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. I say respectfully to the right hon. Gentleman that he will have our support if he tables a vote of no confidence. It is time for this Prime Minister to go. This is a time not for floundering, but for leadership. The Prime Minister has shown nothing but contempt.
We need answers. When will the House get to vote on the deal? Yesterday, the Prime Minister offered no assurances on the timeline. If her plan is to run this to the wire, to take all other options off the table and rob Parliament of its say, she should be ashamed of herself.
Today’s Treasury Committee report expressed disappointment that the Government's analysis did not model the deal. It also affirms that UK firms have no sympathy for a Government too frightened to put their deal to a vote, despite the fact that UK firms lost 2% of their value yesterday with the pound’s fall. Business is losing faith. The Prime Minister has put us in an economically and constitutionally unsustainable position. The SNP will not stand by while the clock ticks down. We will not allow the Prime Minister a free hand to reduce our options to a binary choice. Parliament cannot allow that. We must now take back control. It is time for the Prime Minister to move aside and let Parliament lead or let the people decide.
I say respectfully to the Leader of the Opposition that we want to work with him. We have a choice to put this matter above party politics, bring it to an end and bring this shambolic Government to an end with a motion of no confidence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I must advise the House that no fewer than 31 hon. Members have indicated a wish to catch my eye in this relatively short debate. In consequence of that level of demand, there will have to be a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect. I am sorry, but that is the way it is.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
It is a measure of a person, a Government, or a Parliament how they deal with a crisis. I will leave the Government to one side. Parliament needs to think carefully about how we are seen in the midst of this serious situation. As I said two weeks ago, it is easy to criticise somebody else’s deal and stay entrenched in the positions that we have held over the past two years. I heard what the Minister for the Cabinet Office said about moving his position and I have done the same: I wanted to remain in the EU, but that was not the result of the vote; it was not how people in this country voted in 2016. We can carry on rerunning the same debates or work out how to build a consensus, move forward as a Parliament and set an example to the country.
We should be clear about how this House is seen. I cannot be the only Member who has had said to them in the past 24 to 48 hours, “If you lot can’t sort this out, you have no right to be there at all.” That will come back to bite us all at the next general election, regardless of the positions we have taken on the matter. It is easy to say, as the motion does, that this House wants a vote, but we need to be clear about what we would do with it.
It is obvious that the main position in the House is that we do not want no deal. However, for that to happen, we need something else to put on the table for this House to approve. I am glad that the Treasury Committee report, which was published today, has been mentioned. There is no time to go into it, but the economic damage that no deal would cause is clear.
It is also obvious that parliamentary opinion must be tested sooner rather than later. The main frustration to Members of all parties with yesterday’s decision is that that test has been put off. Members of Parliament have to be more aware of the broader views than our constituents. It is inevitable that those who voted in 2016 or in a general election vote according to what is right for them and their families. Why would they do anything else? However, Members of Parliament cannot vote in Divisions solely on the basis of what we think. We have to think as representatives of our constituents.
Clearly, there are three main views, at least in my constituency: reject the deal and have a second vote; reject the deal and either renegotiate or accept no deal; or support the Prime Minister’s draft agreement. The Leader of the Opposition said, “We will work across the House.” What does that mean? The leader of the SNP has basically just said the same thing. What does he mean by that? The time for talking is over; the time for action by Members to avoid no deal is here.
I do not know how we test parliamentary opinion if we do not have a vote. Perhaps we need to set up a special Select Committee of senior Members of Parliament to hammer out what we mean. Perhaps it is time for some sort of Government of national unity. Perhaps it is time for a free vote on the deal, avoiding the usual party political constraints.
However, I do know that with 108 days to go until this country leaves the EU, if the Government cannot sort out this matter of great national importance, Parliament must step in, stop posturing and get down to work to hammer out a deal.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Yesterday was undoubtedly a day of humiliation for the Government, but from today, we have a different task, which is to avoid humiliation for the nation. We will have to see what the Prime Minister brings back from her talks, but I doubt whether any piece of paper, any codicil or any exchange of letters will save the current withdrawal agreement and political declaration from defeat here. In those circumstances—the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) drew attention to this—there are broadly two choices. The first is that the Government abandon their red lines and apply to join the European economic area and a customs union. That would solve the problem with Northern Ireland, ensure the continuation of friction-free trade, give us many things that are mere aspirations in the political declaration and provide reassurance to businesses, but there would be consequences, including in relation to free movement.
The second option is to put the question back to the people. That could include the Prime Minister putting her withdrawal agreement to the people in a vote. We would need legislation for that and therefore Parliament would have to decide what the questions are. Let us be frank: that is not without difficulty or risk. What would the question or questions be? If there were more than two, what voting method would be used? How could another referendum command legitimacy? It seems clear that we would get to that point only if all other options had been tried and exhausted.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whichever path we end up going down, the first stage should be to rule out no deal, which would be deeply damaging to manufacturing industries, to exports and to our police and security co-operation?
Hilary Benn
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I was just coming to that point. There are two other tasks that we now have to face. One is that we will have to apply for an extension of article 50, because if either of those two courses of action is pursued by the Government, or by the House in the absence of Government leadership, we will require more time.
Secondly, we must address, as the very first thing, the point my right hon. Friend has just raised, which is to make it clear that we will not leave the European Union without an agreement, because the Government say it would be chaotic and damaging. I do not believe that any Government would be so irresponsible as to take us out of the EU without an agreement, and I do not think Parliament would allow it to happen, so why should we carry on pretending that it might happen? The sooner we take it off the table, the better it will be, above all, for businesses that watch this mess and say, “We would just like to get on with selling things, making things and exporting things. Can you please give us some clarity and certainty about what is going to happen?”
Vicky Ford
The right hon. Gentleman is making a passionate plea to buy more time for negotiations. Does he not agree that there is a huge risk, because the European elections mean that everybody on the other side of the negotiating table is likely to change in the European Parliament and the European Commission? It is therefore important to finalise these negotiations before the European Parliament breaks for its elections.
Hilary Benn
I do understand the risks that the hon. Lady raises, but the Government should have thought much earlier about what they were doing. She knows, and she cannot deny the fact, that for two years Ministers have bickered and argued, which is part of the reason we are running out of time. It was not until July 2018 that the Government finally came forward and said what they wanted to ask of the European Union after two years. We cannot undo that, and I am trying to focus on the future and on what we will have to do next.
There are those in this House who will object to either of those courses of action because they believe that we should leave without a deal, but they need to make up their mind. I am not sure whether they want a Canada-style Brexit, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office said. Is it an orderly WTO Brexit? But he drew attention to the damage that would do, such as to our manufacturing industry and our car industry. What kind of side deals? How will the Government agree them? Or is it the rush out, slam the door and shout over our shoulder as we depart, “You can forget about the money!” kind of Brexit that we have heard advocated by certain Conservative Members?
My final point is that we are running out of time. That is why the Prime Minister needs to come back here next week and give us a chance to vote on her deal, because the sooner the House can pass judgment on it—and if it is defeated—the sooner we can get on to the task we will then face. Only when we have done that can we face up to the hard choices. As I have told the House before, all of us in this Chamber will have to compromise if we are to find a way through the mess that our country is now in.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I will return to one or two of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
To overcome the present paralysis, we must all face some truths that perhaps even a majority of the House are finding difficult to face. I would have voted against the withdrawal treaty, because it is the very antithesis of taking back control, but the truth we have to face is that the result of this referendum was not some “exotic spresm,” as expressed by the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), or any other kind of freak accident. It was the logical expression of the accumulation of decades of resentment about how this country has become subject to an out-of-touch political elite who have become happy to subjugate national democratic accountability to an unelected, unaccountable group of commissioners and judges in the EU. That is what the referendum was about.
Now I hear some Members, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), openly arguing for remaining in the EU, as though the referendum could somehow be ignored. That way madness lies for our country. It would be a final vindication of those who would argue that votes never count and democracy can change nothing.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
If my hon. Friend listened to what I am arguing, he would realise that I have said repeatedly that I think we are embarked on an exercise in self-mutilation, but that I recognise that, if that is what people want now that the self-mutilation is so apparent, then that is what they will indeed have. What I am not prepared to do, as a Member of this House, is to carry it out myself without going back and asking them if that is what they really want.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Let us now dispose of the dangerous idea that there can be some disingenuous second people’s vote to try to force remain back on to the agenda. Who with any authority suggested in 2016 that the question would be only a dry run?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, he did not.
The House of Commons voted by 544 votes to 53 to give a clear choice of remain or leave to the voters. The 2016 referendum was the people’s choice. Before there is a fresh motion, I gently remind the House, as one who campaigned for and voted leave and on behalf of the majority who voted in the referendum, that we voted leave and we want leave. Despite all the false warnings that a leave vote would wreak havoc on the economy, a majority of us voted to leave. We represent at least 400 of the constituencies represented in this House. We also represent a broad cross-section of society.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is part of the problem not that a lot of the people in charge of these negotiations do not accept the result of the referendum? Michel Barnier has been heard recently to say that negotiating with the British is like negotiating not with a country that is trying to leave the EU but with one that is applying to join it. I wonder why he feels like that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Because too many people leading these negotiations do not have sufficient faith in the people, economy and future of this country. Who gave a mandate to this House to set itself above the people? Nothing could be better calculated to sow despair and cynicism about politics and politicians, or about this House, or about the credibility of our democracy, than for this House to fail to understand what the word “leave” means; to argue that leave voters must have their motives dissected and psychoanalysed; or to try to prove that we really did not mean leave, that we were voting about something else or that it was all too complicated for the little minds of the voters. There is no ambiguity in the word “leave” which this House placed on the ballot paper.
When we resume the debate, let us share ideas about what kind of relationship the UK might have with the EU after we have left, but leaving the EU means, at the end of it, becoming once again an independent sovereign state. “Leave” does not mean bringing back the same treaty, costing billions for nothing in return, that installs the EU Court of Justice in some superior position over the agreement or that holds the UK hostage to what the EU might decide about our future; or remaining in a single customs territory or subject to an EU rulebook.
The prospect of bringing an acceptable withdrawal treaty to this House is also about making it clear that the UK is preparing and will be prepared to leave the EU on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement, to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. The only alternative is to lie down and submit to the will of the EU, which seems to be the policy of an increasing number of people in this House
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am not giving way. Everyone can see that most countries are outside the EU and, do you know what, they are absolutely fine. Our overriding duty should be to work together to implement the decision and to forge a new consensus about the future of this great nation which reflects the way in which the vast majority of the constituencies in this House voted. The UK is a resilient nation, which has faced far greater challenges to our survival, prosperity and independence than the short-term practical and administrative challenges of leaving the EU. This is not an economic crisis like the 1970s oil shock or the 2008 banking crisis. This will not cause rampant inflation or leave people wondering whether the ATM will deliver their cash. This is not a decision to go to war. It is not a terrorist attack. What this House needs to show is more faith in the people and the way they voted, and more faith in the future of this country. If we sell ourselves short in this House, we are selling the British people short.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I am grateful for your patience, Mr Speaker, as yesterday I had no voice. But today I do have a voice and I am going to use it. I was a proud Member of the European Parliament between 1979 and 1984. I am an internationalist. I believe that countries can achieve more by working together and trying to understand each other than by arguing and fighting each other. As an MEP, I became acutely aware of the importance of human rights and of countries that had fought each other in two world wars sitting together to bring about a lasting peace for Europe, of which the UK is a part and will always be a part. The EU has been a vital instrument in maintaining that peace, protecting our fundamental rights and rule of law, and increasing our national security and prosperity.
The Prime Minister has argued ceaselessly in the past few weeks that she has negotiated a withdrawal agreement that will allow us more control over issues such as immigration, while maintaining close ties with the EU, particularly in the economic sphere. Yet the leader of the Labour group in the European Parliament, Richard Corbett, points out that the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and EU—rather crucial, one would have thought—cobbled together almost as an afterthought, sets out a 26-page to-do list, settling very little.
In essence, this Parliament is being asked to support a blindfold Brexit. Let us be clear that the Prime Minister’s deal means that most crucial issues would be settled only after Brexit, when the UK’s negotiating position is weaker and when we are no longer a member state, and in the context of an agreement that will need the ratification of every national Parliament of the 27, making it even more vulnerable. Our Parliament is invited to take part in a lucky dip—to give the go-ahead to Brexit without knowing what it means for key issues such as the final customs and single market arrangements, cross-border law enforcement mechanisms, participation in European research programmes, access to funding from the European Investment Bank, regulations for cross-border transport, data sharing, student exchanges, defence and security co-operation, and much else. The deal is a sham, and this whole procedure has been a farce. The Prime Minister is trying to sell her deal as better than no deal. She is delaying this vote in the hope that Parliament will run out of time and be forced into backing it. But Parliament now needs to make it clear that the choice is not just between no deal and the Prime Minister’s woeful deal, which she has herself now acknowledged as such, having gone to European capitals not only with her handbag but cap in hand.
Like all hon. Members, I have received a lot of correspondence asking me to support this deal and other correspondence asking me to support other things. But the vast majority are asking me to vote against this deal and support a people’s vote, with the latest polls putting Wales at more than 50% in favour of remain. The two leave options on the table are dangerous, and people need to be given a choice, now that they see what options are available, between no deal, the Prime Minister’s deal, or remaining. The only viable way ahead is a people’s vote. I want to stay in the EU, but it must be for the country to decide.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Prime Minister has now reached the cliff-edge of resignation. I believe that she may well have to resign. Yesterday’s events—running away from the vote and then off to Germany, Holland and the EU—was yet another humiliation for the United Kingdom. She is clinging to the wreckage. She has reached the point of no return. The pulling of the vote yesterday was an insult to the House of Commons and an admission of the failure of the withdrawal agreement itself. It has magnified the contempt of the House displayed in respect of the Attorney General’s opinion, and that issue itself remains incomplete, because we have not had answers that we have asked for. We have not had answers from the Prime Minister to the questions I have asked her in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The agreement has all the characteristics of a dead parrot.
The Prime Minister’s reply to me yesterday about breaches of the ministerial code simply did not begin to answer my complaint about whether the Law Officers’ opinion was fully and properly sought in good time in relation to the fundamental issues that lie at the heart of the withdrawal agreement, our relationship with the European Union and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. These issues go beyond the backstop. The withdrawal agreement fails on every fundamental test. The vote is needed now. There is also the question of the incompatibility of the Act with the mere treaty itself, which is the withdrawal agreement, and of the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom itself.
Public trust in our democracy has been shattered. On Sunday, a poll of 10,000 people showed that 63% of all those who took part had no faith or trust in the Government’s withdrawal agreement. There have been broken promises and misleading statements, breaches of Cabinet collective responsibility, and failures to comply with the ministerial code and the Cabinet manual, not to mention the Commons resolution on the publication of the Attorney General’s full and final legal advice.
There are a vast range of unresolved matters for which it was necessary to have the meaningful vote today, including the question of the transitional arrangements; the indefinite nature of any such extension; the financial framework after 31 December 2020, including the manner in which our own resources would be dealt with and the loss of the rebate itself; the question whether or not we can implement trade deals after the end of the transitional period; and the extent to which we cannot control our laws. All are as important, in their own way, as the backstop. The sovereignty of this House and our control over our laws is fundamental. It is what this Parliament is all about. It is how it has evolved to its greatness. This is the issue. Further discussion of the backstop in the secret rooms of Holland, Germany and Brussels will not resolve these questions.
As I conclude, I call to mind John of Gaunt’s famous speech in which he declared that with “rotten parchment bonds” this country:
“Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.”
This withdrawal agreement does just that: it is a breach of trust and a betrayal. This clutching of straws and running away from the vote is contemptible.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Yesterday’s shameful episode has left many in this House and outside in bewilderment, scratching their heads and virtually at a loss for words as a result of the pulling of the vote. None the less, from the rubble of yesterday there is still the possibility, slim as it may be, that something can emerge. If I work out from today to the date that is currently being touted, 21 January, it seems to me that there are 40 days and 40 nights to lose oneself in the wilderness. I do not know what will emerge at the end of that, but I do know that the prophet Moses delivered something—I would not wish to liken the Prime Minister to the prophet Moses, but we will wait and see.
Chris Bryant
The problem with the 40 days is the temptations that come to individual Members when they are given assurances and then do not see solid real change to the withdrawal agreement that is legally binding.
Mr Campbell
Yes, indeed. That is a very good point.
I want briefly to go through what we have been left with at the moment. It would appear that there are still those who want to try to align the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, with the euro state—that cabal that still rules in Brussels. Who knows what will happen? I know that, some time ago, there was mention of the European parliamentary elections. We do not know what will happen, but we know that they will take place two months after we are scheduled to leave. We know that, over the past 18 months, the direction of travel in many of the countries involved has been a lurch to the far right, and we wait to see what next June will bring. I am not sure whether people will want us to be aligned with those countries—to Poland, to Hungary, to Wilders in the Netherlands, to France, to Germany and to Italy—when we see what comes from those elections.
In the closing moments of my speech, I want to address the issue of the backstop. Much has been made of it. One year ago our Prime Minister made a fundamental mistake, which was to accept that a deal could be done only with a backstop that had to be incorporated as part of the deal. Unfortunately, the EU and the Irish Government have sold our Government the line that the backstop is necessary to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. I have stated this on numerous occasions in this House: there are 643 Members who take their seats in this House, 642 of whom live further away from the border than me. This is about not what I think about the border, but what I and others know about the border and its historical significance.
Antoinette Sandbach
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that current opinion polling in Northern Ireland indicates that the backstop may well be irrelevant in due course, because people are moving towards the idea of a united Ireland in the face of Brexit?
Mr Campbell
The hon. Lady should not pay too much attention to opinion polls. The one she should pay attention to is the one that took place two years ago. I would be happy to face any vote in Northern Ireland about where our future lies.
It does not matter whether a backstop comes under WTO rules, under the guidance of the EU or under the insistence of the United Kingdom Government, because no infrastructure established at the border can work. A backstop is totally and utterly unnecessary, because it cannot work. There are 290 crossing points on under 300 miles of land border in Northern Ireland, so no structure of any kind, anywhere, can work. That is why we do not need a backstop. People would treat the infrastructure with disdain and contempt, because they could avoid it so easily. If we had six, 16 or 26 manned roads across the border—forgetting about the possibility of threats to the people who would man those roads—all of those who lived there, worked there and traded there would know 100 ways to get round the infrastructure without having to go through any customs checkpoints, so there is no point to any backstop. We have been led into a trap. A backstop created by the EU that is null and void and that cannot exist will not prevent any border from coming about.
The only border that exists is a land border between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, which will endure long after we have left the EU, long after WTO rules come in—if they ever come in—and long after the United Kingdom has eventually worked out the way for our country to be an extraneous independent nation state that trades and has good, friendly relationships with those inside and outside the EU. That is our future. We need a better deal, and the Prime Minister needs to bring that back from Brussels if she can do a magic trick that I believe is beyond her.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), but I shall try to confine my remarks to the issue on the Order Paper, rather than the more general debate on the merit of the Government’s deal.
I supported this debate because I happen to agree that what happened yesterday was essentially pretty unprecedented. We have a deal before this House, and this House was in the middle of considering it. The terms under which the EU withdrawal Act passed through the House were an absolute and clear undertaking by the Government that Parliament would be involved at every stage, and that as soon as the deal had been reached it would be brought expeditiously to us—indeed, so much so that some people wondered if it might not appear in the House almost too early, before we had the opportunity to consider it properly. We were in the middle of that consideration.
I fully appreciate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s difficulty. If by going away and speaking to our European partners she will be a position to achieve some change to the deal that she can properly bring before the House, I can understand why she may have wished to interrupt its consideration. But I really do worry about the implications, because although I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Government appear to have given themselves very considerable latitude as to when this business might return to us. If it is clear by Monday of next week that the Prime Minister has not changed the terms of the treaty, I would expect that this House’s consideration of the business ought to resume at once, because it is not in the national interest that we should be prevented from expressing our view on the deal as soon as possible. That is my principal concern.
I was reassured by some of the things I heard this afternoon about the Government’s intentions, but it would simply not be acceptable for the debate to resume on 19 January. I just wanted to make that point, because it seems to be key.
Chris Bryant
I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard the view expressed by some Government Whips that if the Prime Minister has not really got anything out of this week, there would be no point in Parliament sitting next week at all, and that the Government would therefore announce on Thursday that we were not going to sit next week. He will of course be aware that we would have to have a vote on that.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend makes eloquent points, as ever, but is not the fundamental issue here that we have a Brexit nation and a remain Parliament? However eloquent his points are, there is an emotional desire on the part of him and other Members not to respect the mandate of the British people, and that mandate is a critical one if we live in a democracy.
Mr Grieve
For two and a half years now, we have watched the process of trying to implement the result of the 2016 referendum, and if there is one thing on which I hope we might be able to agree, it is that it is perfectly plain that it is proving extraordinarily difficult to do. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, mindful of the risks of economic damage and damage to our national security and wellbeing, has laboured long and hard to try to get a deal. Yet the reality, which has become quite clear in the last week, is that when that deal is examined, it contains numerous flaws and places us in a new and complex legal relationship with the EU, which in many ways, on any objective analysis, appears to be rather less desirable than remaining in it.
I appreciate that there are hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, who believe that there is some clean and easy way through this process. I simply make the point that each of us as Members of this House has a responsibility to our constituents, but also to ourselves, to make judgments on what is for the best for our country. That is what I will continue to try to do, while respecting, or doing my best to give effect to and think through the consequence of, the referendum.
But I say to my hon. Friends that at the end of the day, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that it is unlikely that there is going to be agreement in this House on the model that we want, because of the inherent difficulties that flow from Brexit itself. In those circumstances, I can only repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) about why I support a referendum. It is not because that presupposes a single outcome—after all, it might go against my own arguments—but because at least it provides a way of resolving this that I happen to think would be rather less divisive than the interminable debate that is going to beset us here, even if we leave on 29 March, for the next two and half to five years.
Mr Grieve
No, I will not give way again.
That is the true problem that we face. The alternative, I suppose, is that this Government may collapse and we may have a general election, but I have to say to my hon. Friends—indeed, even to Opposition Members—that I am not sure that in itself will solve the conundrum that we face.
As I say, what I would ask of the Government at the moment—I do not wish to labour these points—is that we are given the necessary space to debate this rationally, because one thing that has worried me in the past 12 months has been repeated attempts to close down opportunities for debate in this House by short-circuiting the process, and that has done us no good at all. Some of us have had to fight really hard to make sure that the process has been followed properly, and have been reviled at times for doing so—yet the evidence shows, I am afraid, that we were right. For that reason, I will try to continue in the same fashion. If we have the right process, we will come up with the right answers.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Unlike most of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches and, indeed, some on the other side, I did not view our vote to leave the European Union as a national shame. I did not view it as an embarrassment, I did not apologise for it, I did not hide from it, and I did not ultimately try to reverse it. I was very proud that it was the greatest exercise in democracy of my lifetime. I was so proud that 70% of constituencies with a Labour MP voted leave, and that even in London the leave vote was greater than the vote given to Sadiq Khan when elected as Mayor.
I felt humbled by all those who had never voted before but came out because this time they knew their vote really would count. People had been told that if they voted leave they were stupid, they did not understand, they were racist—
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that people being called stupid was completely wrong. Does she agree that people in North Tyneside, although I did not agree with the way they voted, were right when they made a decision against unscrupulous work practices and foreign agencies bringing in European workers denied a proper rate of pay and denying local people jobs?
Kate Hoey
My hon. Friend is quite right. It was quite shocking just how those people were ridiculed by so many people on the remain side. They voted to leave and they showed their confidence in the future of our country.
Two days after the referendum, my 95-year-old mother, who was desperately keen to get us out of the EU, said to me, “Catharine”—because that is what I am called by the family—“you know, dear, they will never let us leave.” I said, “No, Mum—we live in a democracy.” How wrong I was. If only, on 24 June 2016, we had all come together determined to make the most of our new opportunities, we may not have found ourselves in this position. Too many people continued to find every legal impediment to delay and try to thwart the decision of the British people.
I am very sorry that, as it turns out, it almost seems as though the Prime Minister has acted like she is one of those people. I believed her when she said that Brexit meant Brexit, but I was wrong. I believed her when she set out her red lines in her Lancaster House speech, but I was wrong. I believed her when she said that no deal was better than a bad deal, but I was wrong. Most of all, as a strong supporter of our United Kingdom and Northern Ireland’s place within it, I believed her when she said that there would never be a border down the Irish sea, but I was wrong.
When it comes to caving into the EU, it seems that our Prime Minister went wanting to be nice and did not stand up for our country. When histories are written of this period, as they will be, they will revolve around the question of whether the border in Northern Ireland was a true stumbling block or just a convenient excuse. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) gave very clear evidence of why everything that has been said about the border was wrong.
Dr Julian Lewis
Is the hon. Lady aware that when the Prime Minister came before the Liaison Committee a few days ago, I asked her nine times in seven minutes who would actually erect a border—whether the Irish would, whether the British would or whether the EU would send in its army to do it? She refused and declined to answer that question every time, because the answer is that no one would ever put it there.
Kate Hoey
The right hon. Gentleman is right. The EU has said clearly that even in a no-deal situation and under WTO rules, there would not need to be a hard border, and therefore there is no need for a backstop. Anything that the Prime Minister comes back with—more reassurance, more letters and more white bits of paper—will not be accepted unless it is in a legally binding agreement. The political choice was taken by the Government to treat the border as an insoluble problem.
A majority in my constituency voted to remain—not everybody, but I acknowledge that. I always say that the third of my constituents who voted to leave in London were in a minority, but they have a right to be represented. It was a national referendum with a national decision to be implemented. I can now say with certainty that virtually none of my constituents in Vauxhall, whether leavers or remainers, has asked me to support this deal.
Whatever is said about the political declaration and all its fine words about intentions for the future, it is not a legal document, and it is therefore meaningless. How could we, as a United Kingdom, have got into a situation where our Prime Minister wants to sign a legally binding agreement giving away £39 billion in advance of any trade negotiations? It will be seen by most members of the public as mind-blowingly stupid.
We hear so much about how clever our civil servants are and how wonderful their advice must be. Frankly, I think they are very clever. They have helped to do what the EU wished and supported a deal that is more in line with the view of the elite—that we never should have left. They have worked so hard to keep us as closely aligned to the EU as possible and then sell it as the best deal we can get. As a remainer herself, the Prime Minister has never really understood why people voted to leave. I am afraid that the EU has seemed to run rings around her.
It is hardly surprising that, after 40 years, we are now so intertwined with the EU that it is difficult to untangle. Those calling for a second referendum when the first has not been implemented should remember that during all those years—I have been here for nearly 30 of them —Parliament signed up to one treaty after another, without ever asking the people of our great country whether they wanted to sign away their sovereignty. Millions of Labour voters will feel utterly betrayed if Labour now backs a second referendum, and certainly one with “Remain” on the ballot paper.
I cannot vote for this deal. There are lots of things in it, as well as the backstop, that I cannot support. I expect the Prime Minister or another leader of the Government, if we cannot get a general election, to go and ask for something much better. If we cannot get that, I do not fear World Trade Organisation rules. There is hysterical fear-mongering going on about how we cannot leave on WTO terms. I would support that, and I think that that is what we will end up doing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On account of the level of demand and because I am keen to accommodate as many remaining would-be contributors as possible, I am sorry to announce that the time limit must be reduced with immediate effect to three minutes. I call Nadine Dorries.
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I cannot boil an egg in that time.
I was struck on my train journey this morning at how everybody in my carriage was talking about Brexit. It was the first time that had happened. One woman announced that she had watched the BBC Parliament channel for the first time ever yesterday and expressed her amazement that she had not even known it existed. I was absolutely struck by how well informed my fellow passengers were, and the main thread of their conversation was to keep asking questions why. I lifted my copy of The Times newspaper up over my face—I could feel myself burning with embarrassment—just in case I was recognised. The questions were: why did the Prime Minister think she could get a better deal on a flying visit than the one she had been able to get over the past two years; if a better deal was available, why had it not been reached already; and why had the Prime Minister insisted all along that this was a great deal until yesterday? They were confused. The most pointed question of all was: why did the Prime Minister stop the vote yesterday, and what was that all about? If the outcome of the vote was absolutely known, why was it stopped? Of course, we know the answers to those questions, but it struck me how the general public would not understand why that happened.
I am also struck by the fact that the Prime Minister has gone to the EU—this is a mild humiliation for her and I think she has been badly advised to do so, but I will say more about that in a moment—to get reassurance about the backstop. She is not going to be given reassurance about the backstop. At the moment, she is going to be given a letter of intent about the interpretation of the withdrawal agreement. That is going to make no difference to anybody in this place whose main concern is the backstop. In fact, Juncker has said this morning that he is going to give no concessions whatsoever. The withdrawal agreement will not be looked at and will not be reopened. Even the Moldovans have an exit clause in their trade agreement. We need to get the Moldovan negotiators over here, because they seem to have done a much better job.
In my last few seconds, I want to say that I think the Prime Minister is being very badly advised by third-rate advisers in No. 10. I saw our Whips Office criticised in the papers today, but it is nothing to do with the Whips, who are also having to deal with the same third-rate advisers. The Prime Minister is deploying all sorts of tactics, such as sending Ministers out and spending lots of money—and I would not be surprised if Parliament does rise this week—but it appears to me that the Prime Minister is in a bunker: she is starring in her own episode of “Downfall”, and we all know how that story ends.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I have had my opportunity to speak in the five-day debate, but many Members have not, and the position they have been put in is unclear and, indeed, entirely unacceptable. Democracy delayed is democracy denied. The Prime Minister is playing a potentially catastrophic hand by delaying the vote on her deal, as has been outlined repeatedly during this debate. It is abundantly clear that her tactic is, yet again, to delay and delay until, at the very last chance, we are railroaded into accepting her deal—reducing the meaningful vote into this meaningless mess.
Today, the Prime Minister is hawking her views around the 27 again, which is futile. The deal itself is not negotiable, as we have heard. The Prime Minister may get the appearance of a clarification on the political statement, but despite all its fine words, the political statement is just a statement of intent. She will satisfy no one.
I believe a motion of no confidence should be brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity to provide enough time to pursue another course. For us in Plaid Cymru, the Prime Minister’s actions make the case for a people’s vote all the stronger. That vote must be a choice between the deal that is on the table and to remain. There is no majority in this place for anything else, such as the fantasy of our leaving with no deal at all. Significantly, the Prime Minister’s deal has been decisively rejected by both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It must be put to the people.
The no-deal option is not acceptable to this House, and from his words earlier, neither is it acceptable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We would not be at liberty to do as we please in the world, as some suppose, and it would be disastrous for the people of the United Kingdom, particularly poorer people and those in areas seen as peripheral. As an example, I am thinking in particular of farming in Wales. Tariffs against our farming interests would devastate the industry both in Wales and through much of upland Britain.
Finally, we must not be satisfied just to remain. Wales and other parts of the UK have suffered enough from poverty, and from the austerity that has provided advantages for the few and fundamental economic injustice. This crisis must be a turning point. A vote to remain has to be a vote to reform, to renew and to regenerate; it cannot be a vote simply for the Europe that is, but for the Europe that can be—social, democratic, decentralised and diverse.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I left work last night embarrassed to call myself a Member of Parliament. The Government are not without blame—the deal is far from perfect and our Brexit journey could have been managed better—but yesterday evening, footage was being shown all around the world of the Mace being taken, apparently because MPs, although legions of them have been on TV to say that they could not vote for the deal and the Prime Minister needed to do better, were outraged that she wanted to go off and do exactly as we had instructed.
It turns out that, for too many of us in this place, the politics matters more than the reality. Very few of those who intended to vote against the deal really wanted the Prime Minister to go off and do any better; they wanted no deal, or no Brexit, or a second referendum, or a general election, or a new Prime Minister. The divisiveness of no deal or no Brexit seems to matter not one bit. The mockery that a second referendum would make of our democracy seems to matter not one bit. The reality that a change of Prime Minister would still mean that someone had to captain the same ship through the same storm seems to matter not one bit, and the fact that the Labour party says it wants a general election, but still has no idea what its Brexit policy is, let alone how it would negotiate it, seems to matter not one bit either.
So here we are, angry that we did not get a vote on whether we should have a vote, having a debate about not having a debate. There is no majority for anything and, as far as I can tell, there is little desire to find a majority either. At the most important parliamentary moment in decades, we are digging our trenches deeper and refusing to find compromise. In the past few weeks the Prime Minister has travelled around the country, trying to sell her plan. She has spent hours in this place doing the same. Now she is travelling around Europe, trying to articulate Parliament’s requirement that we get something different.
Despondent, last night I read an early draft of my maiden speech, written just three and a half years ago. It was filled with hope: hope for what our Government could do, and hope for what this Parliament can do. We have all agreed that this is not how it should be. Deep down, we all know that we can do better, but only if we climb out of our trenches and reconsider all options, especially the Prime Minister’s deal. The Christmas present that the nation seems to want above any other is for us in this place to rediscover the art of the pragmatic compromise. That is not weakness; it is leadership.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Minister today, and the Prime Minister yesterday, talked about the importance of honesty in the debate. I agree, but my contention is that a lack of honesty and candour about the reality of what the Government are trying to do has been largely responsible for their ending up in this position.
Let us take the issue of the backstop. The backstop is only there if a treaty is not agreed that does the same job as the backstop, which is to ensure such a degree of customs and regulatory alignment that there is no need for a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Have the Government really been honest about what that means for any treaty that is agreed instead of the backstop? Have they been candid about that? I do not think so. Do we really think that the Government have been candid and honest with themselves, their own Back Benchers or the country about the implications of what they agreed to this time last year, when they agreed that the backstop or something like it would be there? I do not think so.
What the Government agreed was such a degree of alignment, which is now beginning to be reflected in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, that instead of taking back control as the referendum was supposed to do, people can now see that this is an enormous transfer of sovereignty from the UK to the European Union. It sets a future for us as huge European rule takers. I agree with the Minister about honesty and candour, but I do not think it has been there.
The second point is about process and trust. I do not want to repeat the exchanges during the urgent question earlier, but there is now a real suspicion that what the Government will try to do is not bring forward an early resumption of the debate, but instead run down the clock, so that this decision is not made on the basis of the merits of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, but rather set against the disaster of no deal. To do that is simply to hold a gun to Parliament’s head. Are the Government really going to say, “If you don’t vote for what we propose, we are due to start stockpiling food”? That is hugely irresponsible with the public, industry and business.
The final point about honesty is this: the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) says we have to face up to the implications of the alternatives. The challenge I put to him and to his fellow Ministers is to ensure that Parliament can vote on those alternatives. I agree with him: we should be responsible for the consequences of them.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
This is an extraordinary use of parliamentary time. After having called for more consideration of the content of the withdrawal agreement, voices from both sides of the House are now asserting that a pause in proceedings is wholly unacceptable. If Members really want to get to an agreement, then this pause in proceedings could be exactly what we need to resolve some of the issues that have already come out in the debate, however inconvenient that may be to Members.
The factions in this place really need to take a long, hard look at themselves in the mirror: the Brexiteers, the no dealers, the ones who want to reverse article 50, the ones who want a second referendum, the ones on the Labour Front Bench who want a general election, and the ones who fancy their chances as Prime Minister. Members need to grow up collectively and realise that any agreement requires compromise. That is what the Prime Minister is seeking to achieve.
Mrs Miller
I will not give way to the hon. Lady, because there are lots of Members who want to take part in the debate.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) was absolutely right when he said that we have to face some home truths, particularly those who are intent on rejecting this deal. Home truth No. 1 is that no deal is still on the table and no Government can take it off. EU citizens here and UK citizens abroad are at risk of having no support—none of the support all of us have been calling for over the past two years—and we risk the worst damage to our economy. A second referendum would not only split our country down the middle; I believe it is an abrogation of our responsibility when we were elected last year on a mandate of implementing Brexit.
The withdrawal agreement is, like it or not, what Brexit looks like in reality—backstop and all. To get an agreement, the Prime Minister is entirely right to pause the debate. It is our job to minimise the risk of the UK leaving the EU, and the Government owe it to the House to have the best deal to put to a vote. Rather than focusing on the sensibilities of the House of Commons, I will focus on what is best for our country. The Government are clear that there will be a meaningful vote and debate, and that they will try to resolve some of the issues around the backstop. As Members it is our duty to come to an agreement—not to pass the buck and certainly not to duck our responsibility—to get a way to leave the EU that is acceptable to both sides of the House.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I want to start by recognising the amount of time you have spent patiently and diligently in the Chair, Mr Speaker, doing your best to defend the integrity of this place. It would appear, however, that the Government could not care less about the integrity of this place.
Some 97% of all constituents who contacted me about Brexit were against it. Scotland as a whole voted to remain. That was ignored. The Scottish Government then produced a sensible plan with a reasonable compromise. That was ignored. This UK Government have been held in contempt of Parliament for deliberately trying to conceal facts, yet there is not a hint of embarrassment on the Government Benches. There is not a hint of regret or even of awareness of the damage they are doing.
For the Government to set a date for this meaningful vote and say that they would not pull the vote, only then to pull the vote and use the archaic processes of this place to prevent a vote on whether to have the original vote pulled, shows just how much of a fankle this Government have got themselves in. To top it all off, the day finished with a woman with a sword chasing after a guy stealing a big stick. Is it any wonder that the rest of the world are looking at this and laughing? They are looking at this and wondering what could be going on, and is it any wonder—I will say it again—that Scotland has the option to get better than this? We have another option on the table.
My friend and former colleague, Miriam Brett, summed this up perfectly:
“This entire farce is emblematic of Britain’s broken democracy. A referendum held to appease an Etonian boys club was won on the back of financial corruption of elites, and when half of the countries involved vote remain, it makes sod all difference.”
I join the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—otherwise known as Ian—in calling on the Leader of the Opposition to bring forward a no-confidence motion at the earliest opportunity, because if we are genuinely to look at ourselves and say that this display that we have seen for the last two years, never mind the last week, is the best that we can do, then by God, I cannot blame Scotland for taking the opportunity of independence.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It has been suggested today, particularly by the Opposition, that the decision yesterday to postpone the vote showed a disrespect for the House and showed that the Prime Minister was not listening. I respectfully disagree with that analysis. It became very apparent in the three days of debate that we had that there were very grave concerns on both sides of the House that the withdrawal agreement, as drafted, not only would not pass, but would not pass by a very large majority. Given the gravity of the matter before us and the desire to get on with this quickly, it seemed to me the right thing to do to pause the process while the Prime Minister attempts to remedy the defects that hon. and right hon. Members had identified. In doing so, she had listened to the concerns that were being raised, and I hope that she will be able to address them.
There will, of course, be a vote. No one is attempting to duck a vote—a vote will come and Parliament’s voice will be heard—but I agree with the points made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) a few moments ago regarding the timing, because 29 March will be upon us pretty quickly, and it would not be responsible of the Government to take an unduly long time to come back to the House. If they do—and in my view, 21 January would be an unduly long time—we as a Parliament, and indeed, as a country, will not have the time to prepare ourselves for whatever the future may hold. So I say to Government Front Benchers: please bring this matter back before the House extremely quickly, so that we have the time to deal with this with as much notice as we can possibly manage.
I also say to Government Front Benchers that, in order to address the concerns that colleagues have been raising, particularly in relation to the backstop, whatever assurances the Prime Minister is able to obtain will have to be legally binding. I very much hope, as she speaks to other European leaders today, tomorrow and at the European Council on Thursday, that such assurances can be found in a legally binding form.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned some of the ways forward, such as the Norway option. Let me put it on record that I think the Norway option is a terrible option, in that it entails all the obligations of European Union membership—unlimited free movement, full budget contributions and being rule takers across the entire economy—without any say at all. There is no question whatsoever that I would ever contemplate voting for such an option.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We live in unprecedented times. There have been 20 ministerial resignations and many, many more at Parliamentary Private Secretary level, and the Government have been found to be in contempt of Parliament—the first Government ever to be. No one even seems to bat an eyelid any more. Then, we had the events of yesterday. Yes, the Prime Minister may have spent 22 hours on her feet answering questions on all this, but we are still none the wiser. We have no concrete date for when that meaningful vote will ever come to fruition. Every time legitimate scrutiny is performed by Opposition Members, we are shut down and told that it is political point scoring.
Dr Huq
I will not give way because a lot of people want to speak.
The Government are crippled by indecision and paralysed by Brexit. Labour was accused of constructive ambiguity when trying to steer a course for both the 48% and the 52%, but now the Government have adopted the same strategy, trying to scare people into supporting their deal by invoking either no deal or no Brexit, depending on who they are talking to—they cannot both be right. Or are they trying to bore us into accepting their deal by saying that the British public are bored of this, even while refusing to make a fresh assessment of what the British public think now?
Of the 164 hon. Members who spoke in the debate, 122 were against the deal. This is a decision bigger than on any piece of legislation, any Budget, anything that any of us has voted for, but it seems that the Government do not want to play ball and follow the parliamentary rules. Every time I have raised the question of a people’s vote with the Prime Minister, she has told me that it would corrode trust in politics and politicians, but can she not see that she is doing just that—corroding faith in democracy? She has whipped MPs to abstain on Opposition day motions—I think it all started with Andy Burnham’s motion on how people are not pawns and should not be used as such in the negotiations. The Government have been forced to publish legal and economic advice. We now know why, having seen that advice. They have been found in contempt of Parliament. And all that before yesterday marching us all to the top of the hill and then pulling the vote at the last minute.
Democracy is not just about turnouts at general elections; it is about votes in this House, and we surely cannot have a Government who decide not to take part when they see that they cannot win. Our unwritten constitution may not have formal checks and balances, but it relies on trust, and that is slipping away from the Government. They are clocking up air miles rather than votes and ditching openness and transparency. Any decision should be taken only when people are in full command of the facts, but this Government believe the opposite. The only way to resolve this is by holding a people’s vote to see if the will of the people in 2016 is still the will of the people now.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
As you will recall, Mr Speaker, there have been many debates and statements in this House—there is no debate about that—but Parliament has never been fully involved in trying to build a compromise and find a way of delivering on Brexit. That involvement should have come at the beginning of the process, but ironically is taking place now. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) are no longer in their places, but for them to speak about compromise at this late stage—perhaps they do not know or have failed to understand all that has taken place in the last two and a half years—was at best unfortunate.
It gives me no pleasure to say this, but the fault lies fairly and squarely in the leadership—or lack of—at the highest levels of Government, in the Cabinet and in my party. In numerous conversations and meetings, Members of this place who supported remain went to the Prime Minister and spoke at length about how she could deliver the result of the referendum while keeping this place together, building a consensus and doing the right thing by seeing off those who were never going to be bought off or satisfied and who only wanted their hard Brexit.
Some of us begged the Prime Minister to her face to reach over the top of the Labour Front Bench, who have been pitiful in their supposed role as Her Majesty’s Opposition, and form that consensus, which undoubtedly existed not just among Labour’s Back Benchers but down there with the SNP, whose Members have always said they would vote for and support staying in the single market and customs union. We tried to establish that very early on, but instead, like the 48%, we were cast aside and the Prime Minister made the terrible mistake of always trying to appease the members of the ERG, who now act as a party within a party.
I will not repeat the wise words of my friend the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), but to make matters worse, instead of candour and honesty, we got stupid, irresponsible slogans such as “Brexit means Brexit”, when nobody knew what on earth it meant. Worst of all, we were told that no deal was better than a bad deal, and now we are surprised that we are trying to persuade people that no deal would be the very worst outcome. It was only in the last moments, having exhausted all other alternatives, that we landed on a people’s vote. It is now the only way out of this mess.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Well, Mr Speaker, what a day!
Since 1992, when I first entered politics on the old Clydebank District Council, I never thought for a moment not only that I would sit here representing one of the greatest constituencies in these islands, but that I would listen to Members on the Government Benches—with the exception of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), I must admit—threaten the Democratic Unionist party with a united Ireland. That is a way to win friends and influence people. Then there was the position yesterday on the Floor of the House of Commons when the vote was pulled. Parliamentary democracy might as well have ended with a coup d'état by the Government of the United Kingdom. It is an extraordinary position when the Executive fundamentally undermine the authority of the legislator. Anyone here who has not read a single book on political theory might as well go and read one now, because that is where we are in terms of the democratic deficit in this political state.
It may come as no surprise that Scottish National party Members have been consistent in our support for the single market and the customs union, rather than making back-door deals like others. I think that even the official Opposition have approached members of the DUP, who do seem to be winning friends and influencing people. Good luck to them. They at least received the offer of a backstop; we did not, although we voted overwhelmingly to remain, and not only in my own constituency. I have no doubt about supporting remain, given that the industrial working class of West Dunbartonshire voted overwhelmingly for it, but they also voted for their country to be an independent sovereign nation with a family of European nations.
Then there is the very idea that we should be joining the European economic area— the Norway plus plus plus plus/TK Maxx model. I was reading Fintan O’Toole in The Irish Times this morning. He explained that the EEA is not just about Norway, and told us that we must not forget the Grand Duchy of Liechtenstein. He wrote that
“the Liechtenstein constitution… grants a veto over all laws to His Serene Highness Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein”.
There may be some in this place who would want to hand it over to him—an unelected, unaccountable hereditary absolute monarch—but I do not.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition, “Do us all a favour and table a motion of no confidence”, because I have every confidence that my constituency will not only vote for the Scottish National party but vote to remain in the European Union—and the time may come for my nation to take its place once again as an independent sovereign country.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). I am not sure that I can quite follow his passion, but I will do my best.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me five minutes outside the Chamber. I was very embarrassed to have to go very late to an Anglo-French meeting. A number of French people, including mayors from the north of France, were attending the event along with others from the south of England, and we were working together to try and re-energise our respective coasts. I tried to explain to those people why I was late; that we were having a debate about why we had not had a debate yesterday, and we were going to have a vote on why we had not had a vote last night. Luckily, a French translator was on hand, but I said, “Don’t worry about that”, because none of the English audience would really understand it either.
I was particularly keen to speak this afternoon. I have been blessed in a way, because I have heard from other Conservative Members who have very different views on how we should be leaving the European Union, or whether we should be leaving at all. I respect those views, but I am also reminded that we need to find a way through this. My great concern is that, as Parliament takes control, it is quite clear that Parliament cannot find its own consensual voice when it comes to what that control should be. It is all well and good for my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) to say that leave means leave—that was effectively in our manifesto, and that is where we should be going—and it is all well and good for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) to say that we should look towards a second referendum. It is also all well and good for my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—my great friend—to say that we should remain in the single market and the customs union. But I am also reminded that 83% of voters in the election voted for the Labour party or Conservative party manifestos that said that we would not be doing those things. So there is a mandate to leave on the terms I would advocate.
“Compromise” is not a sexy word, but we all need to embrace it as we proceed through this very difficult situation, because 52% of the country voted to leave, and of course they wanted to go, but 48% did not. What this agreement gives to those 48% is a relationship with the EU that will last: it will go deeper in some terms, but in other terms will recognise the referendum result. That is what I told the French delegation today. I said, “We want to continue to work with you, and work deeper.” But for those 52% who wanted us to exit, the democratic right was exercised and that means leaving, but it does not mean leaving with no deal at all.
So I ask right hon. and hon. Members, if they are concerned about business uncertainty, about jobs, about security and about their constituents’ livelihoods, please embrace compromise and find a way through.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I have had the honour and pleasure of serving Battersea for little more than 18 months, but it is clear to me, as it is to Members across the House, that the behaviour of this Government is unprecedented—unprecedented in their chaotic approach to managing Brexit, unprecedented in their contempt and disregard for Members of this House and the people we represent, unprecedented in their Ministers saying one thing and then going on to do another. At each stage of their handling of Brexit, the Government have attempted to avoid scrutiny and duck responsibility. They have tried to deny us a meaningful vote on the deal, they have tried to withhold legal advice, and they have tried to keep the economic impact assessments out of the public domain, and now the Prime Minister has pulled the meaningful vote just days after promising she would not do that, and just hours after her Government Ministers said she would not do it. It is a shameful record for any Government, but especially for this dysfunctional Government confronted with the magnitude of the political issue of Brexit.
I am angry not just because the Government are undermining parliamentary procedure, but because I know that my constituents are both angry and alarmed at what they see happening. I have received thousands of pieces of correspondence from constituents calling on me to reject the Prime Minister’s deal, and I have written back to each and every one of them saying I will vote against it; what do I tell them now? We are told that the vote will come before 21 January 2019, but that will only heighten fears of a no-deal scenario. My constituents need reassurance, but with this Government and this Prime Minister that is not something I can give.
My constituents need a Government who will not only sort out this Brexit mess but solve the other crises facing our country: the housing crisis, the crisis in social security, the crisis in our NHS.
Dr Allin-Khan
In pulling this vote, the Government continue to betray our children, our hospital patients and our much valued NHS workforce. The Prime Minister is running scared, unable to face a debate either in this House or on the television. Does my hon. Friend agree—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to be unkind to the hon. Lady, but a large number of colleagues want to speak, so interventions should be brief.
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend makes a good point.
Yesterday the Prime Minister again said that she wants to tackle social injustices, so may I recommend that she begins by reading and then accepting the conclusions of the UN report on extreme poverty? Eight years of her Government’s austerity policies have devastated our communities and devastated disabled people.
This Government have no answers to the challenges we face on Brexit or anything else. Their only achievement is to unite people in opposition to them. It is downright shameful that they have pulled the meaningful vote. Parliament must be given a meaningful vote on the deal. The Government must provide that guarantee. I know that many Members on the Conservative Benches share that view, so when the Prime Minister returns with no significant changes—as Jean-Claude Juncker said this morning, there is “no room whatsoever” for the Prime Minister to renegotiate her deal, and I understand that Angela Merkel has said almost the same thing—if this House finally gets the right to reject the deal, given the chance I urge Conservative Members to support a no- confidence motion.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My constituency voted to leave the European Union, and I also voted to leave. I was elected as an MP almost exactly two years ago, shortly after the referendum, and I gave my maiden speech in the article 50 debate. I have consistently believed that, as the representative of my constituents, I must ensure that the Sleaford and North Hykeham voice on this matter is heard in this Chamber and that Brexit is delivered. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) that there is a significant challenge for the Government in delivering Brexit within a remain Parliament.
I have done a lot of listening to those local voices since the details of the deal first broke last month, and I have engaged with members of my association, with local residents, and with the hundreds of constituents who have got in touch with my office. Across all those conversations, there has been a common thread of concern. Whether they voted to remain or to leave in 2016, my constituents are concerned about the risk of entering into a backstop arrangement that could last indefinitely and that could not be left unilaterally. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General said, that is too great a risk to bear.
Many have asked the Prime Minister to listen to these concerns, which have been expressed privately and publicly, including in this Chamber. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the pressure of time and the need to ensure a good deal before 29 March 2019, and I agree with that. We have had three days of debate on this issue, and the will of the House is clear to everyone. I do not believe that having a vote would tell us anything we do not already know. Common sense recognises that the Government were faced with two options. They could continue to listen to the debate for two more days and then have a vote, the result of which was already known, or they could use that time to go back to the EU and change the offer to reflect the concerns. Clearly, improving the deal has to be the priority for all of us.
Opposition Members might prioritise a vote so that they can point and jeer and score political points, but the people of this country want us to get on with delivering the Brexit that they voted for. In my view, the right attitude is not to play politics but to consider what is best for this country and for our constituents, and to wish the Prime Minister and the Government good fortune in their negotiations with Brussels. I hope that she can come forward with a better deal from the EU, and I hope that other right hon. and hon. Members will wish her the best as well.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), on one thing, which is that this is an abject mess. A rather unattractive feature of the Brexiters in this debate is that they tend to blame everyone but themselves for the mess. They are seeking to blame the civil servants, the professional advisers and indeed the remainers for the mess that they themselves have created. We saw the Prime Minister’s spin operation over the weekend, when she said that she would press her deal to a vote. She marched all her second lieutenants up the hill but then left them stranded under fire while she slipped back down the hill under the cover of darkness.
I am pleased that the deputy Prime Minister is in his place. He has talked about the Prime Minister’s Stakhanovite work ethic, but people who know their history will know that the production figures did not quite represent the large figures that were put forward under that regime. I am sorry to say that her productivity has been rather less than her air miles would suggest.
I must point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I am rather perplexed. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) said, we are having a debate about not having a debate, but many Opposition Members—certainly those in the Scottish National party—were rather expecting the Leader of the Opposition to initiate a no-confidence debate today. He has been in the House even longer than I have, and I am sure that he would agree, after the past week in which the Government have been defeated three times, found to be in contempt of Parliament for the first time in history and pulled the vote at very short notice yesterday, that he has never seen a Government quite so rudderless, ill-disciplined and leaderless as this one. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is time to stop hiding behind process, to discover his inner lion, to throw down the gauntlet and to table a motion of no confidence. Many Opposition Members would back him.
I hope that the deputy Prime Minister will guarantee that we will vote on the Prime Minister’s deal next week, and that a legislative means of ruling out no deal will be provided because of the damage that it would cause business, and to prevent us from descending further into the vortex of disarray and disillusionment.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
William Butler Yeats wrote poetry about not being able to write poetry. Today, I am debating not having a debate yesterday, but I will take my three minutes where I find them.
The country is tired of politicians wasting time bickering. People want us to get on with delivering a practical Brexit that protects our interests and honours the vote. The House has made clear its deep concerns about the proposed withdrawal agreement, most of all the Northern Irish backstop. Having taken that on board, rightly but late in the day, the Prime Minister was correct to pause the parliamentary process and go back to Brussels. If opponents of the deal had been arguing in good faith, surely they should welcome that effort, wish her every success and reserve judgment until we see what changes can be negotiated in Brussels.
Opponents of the deal need to be honest with us and the voters about the options if the deal is rejected. As I see it, they would be no deal, Norway forever or a second referendum. Supporters of the first course of action should recognise that the House does not support no deal. I understand that some of the direst predictions could be averted through careful management and negotiated bilateral agreements with the EU, but none the less, I share the view that that represents an unacceptable risk to our economy and to British employers. I still believe in experts, although some seem not to.
The only realistic alternatives to the Prime Minister’s deal at this stage are a softer Brexit or no Brexit. As for the so-called Norway option, it is a bad fit for a country such as ours. For starters, what began as “Norway for now” has become “Norway forever” as the EEA nations have made it clear that we will not be welcome to use their arrangements as a stepping stone to the bespoke deal we need. In fact, because it will still need to include the backstop, the Norway plan is in many senses much worse than the withdrawal agreement, not least because it involves continuing payments into the EU budget and abandoning any attempt to control freedom of movement.
Finally, a word to those pushing for a second referendum: in the previous Parliament, the House voted overwhelmingly to pass the decision on our EU membership to the British people. The Government made explicit promises to honour the result. Conservative and Labour manifestos said the same. The push for a so-called people’s vote stands in a long and dishonourable traditional of electorates who disappoint Brussels being told to vote again. I strongly believe that a second vote would deliver the same result as the first at the price of further dividing our country and our society.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
We are in a painfully predictable situation. We all knew, when article 50 was triggered, that there was a time limit. That is why I voted against it. We all knew that there would be French and German elections that would get in the way of negotiations, and then the Prime Minister called her own election, so there was less and less time. The then Brexit Secretary said that everything would be fine and that we would easily negotiate a deal that would give us exactly the same benefits as we have.
Here we are, two and a half years after the referendum and the deal is not yet cooked, so we are putting it back in the oven for a few more days, with a bit of salt and sugar, hoping it will come out and everyone will eat it. However, the reality is that some people want more salt and others want more sugar. The deal, whatever it is, will not be agreed in this place. The hard Brexiters—the loony-tunes, let’s-Brexit-without-a-deal people—will never agree it. The hardcore remainers will not agree it, saying that we are better off with what we have.
I believe that Brexit is a betrayal of Conservatism because it gets rid of the best trading model in the world. It also gets rid of the United Kingdom Union because if we exit without a deal, there will necessarily be a hard border, otherwise there will be nothing to prevent migration. It will simply not work.
Brexit is a betrayal of socialism because, inherently, it will mean a smaller economy—a smaller cake to be divided more equally by a future Labour Government. It will mean that a subsequent Tory Government could reduce workers’ rights and environmental rights beneath EU standards, and socialists should oppose it.
Geraint Davies
No, I will not. Other people want to speak.
The Prime Minister is trying to kick this into the long grass, but the area of long grass is getting smaller and smaller because the lawn mower of article 50 means there are only a few weeks left. The reality is that any Brexit will mean we have less money. We will not have the £350 million a week. We will have to pay the divorce bill. We will have less trade. We will have fewer jobs. We will have less control because of Henry VIII powers and because we will have to obey EU rules. There will be just as much immigration but from different places.
The ECJ has decided that we can now revoke article 50. If we do not have a deal by 21 January and we face no deal, we should revoke article 50 and stay in the EU. If we have a deal, any sort of deal, we should put it to the people by deferring article 50 so that they can decide whether they want the deal on the table that the EU will accept, because we will not agree it here. If they do not want it, and if they find it better to stay in the EU, we should stay in the EU. I very much hope we stay in the EU, as we would be stronger, fairer and more united, and there would be a better future for all our children.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
During the 2016 referendum many Members of this House on the leave side told leave voters that, if we left, we would be voting to leave the EU, not voting to leave Europe, and they promised that co-operation on trade and in areas like science, student exchanges and security would all continue. It is precisely that deal that the Prime Minister has sought to negotiate, but when she brought the deal to this House, many colleagues raised the issue of the backstop. It was not just the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) who raised the issue of the backstop; it was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the former Chief Whip, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), the esteemed former Defence Secretary. They all raised the issue of the backstop. [Interruption.]
Hello, Father Christmas. [Laughter.] Actually this is not a time for laughter. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, Father Christmas was behind you. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand the merriment, but I want to hear the hon. Lady.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I hope it is a genuine point of order, and not a point of frustration.
Vicky Ford
During this debate, even my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), the chair of the 1922 committee, urged the Brexit Secretary and the Prime Minister, in the strongest possible terms, to redouble their efforts to get reassurance on the backstop. Our Prime Minister has gone back to ask EU leaders to work again on the backstop, because Members of this Parliament instructed her to do so. Hard Brexit brings real risk, and rejecting the referendum result also brings real risk.
The proposals from the Labour Front Bench promising the exact same benefits as the single market without the obligations are fantasy fiction. This is not a game. The risks faced by our constituents are real. I urge Members on both sides of the Chamber to stop criticising our country’s negotiators. Members should roll up their sleeves, wrap a cold towel around their head and work out what sort of deal they can support, because unless we find support for a deal, our constituents and our neighbours across Europe will never forgive us.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I made it clear to my constituents that I would not be supporting the Prime Minister’s deal. The deal locks us into purgatory, and a few added pages in the appendix will not change that. Whether we said yes or no to Brexit, nobody voted for this.
How can we believe anything this Government say? Yesterday played out the Prime Minister’s contempt for Parliament and for the people we represent. It is their Parliament she smothers and ignores. Her humiliation now risks becoming the country’s humiliation. In what possible scenario do her latest actions help us negotiate a better deal, as we step closer to a no deal? But I fear a more cynical move in the Government’s motives. After running the clock down, and two years of excluding the country from making a deal together, the Prime Minister refuses to express the realities of Brexit compared with its rhetoric and will not say when the meaningful vote will be—or, indeed, whether it will be either meaningful or a vote. Threatening no deal if it is not her deal is a confection. Such an approach is straight out of a mis-selling scandal; it is, “Take this now or lose everything. Now or nothing. No other choice”, but it will not wash.
Far from taking back control, the Prime Minister stands in the way of control. Britain said yes and no to Brexit. Some 3,000 leavers and remainers in my constituency have taken my Brexit survey, with an 80% combined view that the public or Parliament should have a final say on the deal, compared with just 11% for the Prime Minister. I understand sentiments such as, “Why aren’t we there yet?” or, “Get on with it”, but this is too important to lose patience with. It is too important to be told, “Time’s up, everyone out.” The Prime Minister has not united the country because she cannot unite it with the approach she has taken on the one job she had. She should bring her deal back to Parliament next week, conclude the vote and have Parliament decide what is next, including whether we should ask for further instruction from the people. If she cannot sell her deal, it is not worth buying, but all efforts now must be to activate this place, our Parliament, to protect against a no deal.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
After the referendum, I had several public meetings with my constituents and they told me that they thought we should have a cross-party negotiating team. The Prime Minister’s strategic process error has been the failure to build consensus across party, across the House and across the country, culminating yesterday in pulling the vote. It is simply wrong for her to threaten us with a catastrophic no-deal exit if we do not accept her approach. Constantly prioritising the unity of the Tory party and pandering to the European Research Group was doomed to fail; they are happy with no deal—they have already stashed their cash overseas.
So what should we do now? I am not going to say that everything in the Prime Minister’s deal is bad. Some colleagues say that it is too late for a renegotiation, but I am not sure about that. We should take a leaf out of Leo Varadkar’s book and change the red lines, most obviously the obsession with the ECJ. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that those of us who wanted to stay in the customs union, which is very popular with the public, needed to be honest that that would mean common regulation. Quite honestly, I am happy to stay in the social chapter, with the environmental standards, and the industrialists in my constituency tell me that they want the European Medicines Agency and the European customs agency. Furthermore, this would make a significant difference to our European partners, because they are worried about regulatory arbitrage: that we are going to compete with them unfairly by cutting regulations and red tape.
I must confess that I am nervous of the Norway option, because it means free movement without getting a seat at the table. We must avoid a catastrophic no deal. If that means we need to have a people’s vote in the end, so be it. I do not believe it is undemocratic to vote again. The truth of the matter is that we all know more than we did two and a half years ago. But I have a warning to the super-remainers as well: staying in the EU will not mean everything in the economic garden is lovely. We must do more for people on low pay. For example, we need to strengthen the trade unions.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I was one of the MPs down to speak yesterday, on what should have been the fourth day of the debate on the withdrawal agreement. Hundreds of constituents have contacted me about the agreement, with the vast majority —some 81%—urging me to vote against it. I wanted to articulate in my speech in that debate the reasons why the people I represent are so worried. They are concerned about jobs, the economy, security and our international reputation. I did not get my chance, though, and my constituents were denied a voice because, as we all know, yesterday’s debate just did not happen. I represent a constituency in which the majority—60%—voted to leave the EU in the referendum, yet the Prime Minister has achieved what seemed impossible two and a half years ago: she has united both sides of the referendum debate in Heywood and Middleton in opposition to her deal.
We have a Government in chaos. Last week, they were found to be in contempt of Parliament, but it seems that that means nothing. The Government have just carried on regardless. There is no clarity about when the debate will be resumed and the meaningful vote held. In a letter to her MPs on 25 November, the Prime Minister said that she had
“negotiated the best possible Brexit deal for the whole United Kingdom. It is now for MPs to decide: back this deal and honour the referendum result…or vote against it and take us back to square one”.
She also said:
“EU leaders have made it clear today that this is the only deal on the table.”
That was two weeks ago, so what has changed? How has the “best possible Brexit deal” and the “only deal” morphed into something over which the Prime Minister is now trailing around Europe seeking reassurances?
The Prime Minister said that to vote against the deal would take us back to square one. Well, square one seems a better place to be than where we are now. Right now, we are not even on the board.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Seventy years ago, at the beginning of 1948, Czechoslovakia stood as the only democracy in eastern Europe. By the end of that 12-month period, it had slipped into becoming a totalitarian satellite state of the Soviet Union—not by force, but instead by political actors who casually discarded democracy as the days turned by. All of which was, of course, egged on by the power of a foreign nation. That is not to say that we face the same dark fate that Czechoslovakia faced, but the background music does not bode well. Indeed, it raises significant alarm bells.
We have had, up to now, Government-supporting newspapers calling judges enemies of the people; Conservative Members using the language of treachery and some even casting doubt on your neutrality, Mr Speaker; and MPs accusing sitting judges of political activism. This is the language of a despot, whether they like it or not. Not once have the Government lifted a single finger to come to the defence of the right of judges or Members of Parliament to go about their business freely, in the way the public rightly expect them to do so.
The truth is that Parliament has become an irritant to this Government. They behave like a tin-pot republic with a Queen on the throne. They have tried to frustrate Parliament here in this House using arcane procedures or, indeed, in the courts. We even had the extraordinary scenes of the UK Government taking the Scottish Parliament to court over the passing of their own Brexit continuity legislation. We now have a Government who hobble from Division to Division, wondering every day whether it might well be their last—and so they should.
I welcome any opportunity to highlight the Government’s failings—
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I thought my hon. Friend might welcome that opportunity! Is not the irony in all this that the Brexit referendum was supposed to be about taking back control, but in fact power has been seized by Whitehall?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Parliament is finally starting to assert itself, and rightly so.
I welcome any opportunity to highlight the miserable failings of this Government, but this debate today is no substitute for a vote of no confidence. We have a Government who have gone from dying on their feet to quite literally dying on their knees by the hour. This is not the time for pusillanimous opposition from the Opposition Front Bench. What is needed is real leadership. What is needed is a motion of no confidence. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) can grin and stare over his glasses all he likes, but he should bring that no-confidence vote forward and the SNP Members will see him in the Lobby.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the Opposition will be called no later than 5.3 pm.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). I strongly agree with him that, often, we recognise democracy only in its breach.
The Government’s decision to prevent this House from voting on and debating their deal is reckless and ideological. It is reckless because it pushes that vote closer towards the no-deal deadline, and it is ideological because the Government have chosen to focus on criticism from just one perspective—those who dislike the backstop—not least the ERG group on their own Back Benches. Yet there are far more significant problems with this deal—problems that hundreds of my constituents have contacted me about and that I would have had the chance to articulate had the Government not pulled the debate and vote on these measures.
First, the deal guarantees no long-term certainty for customs arrangements, which is so important for firms such as BMW at Cowley in my constituency with a highly complex supply chain. Secondly, it fails to secure processes for regulatory alignment in the future, so no block on our country becoming the polluted, precariously employed, deregulated man of Europe. Finally, we still have no certainty for our EU friends and neighbours. I have still had no response from the Prime Minister about whether failure to exercise EEA treaty rights could be used to deny settled status, and we still have no certainty over immigration procedures for the scientists, researchers, doctors, nurses and other workers who are so desperately needed in my constituency and, indeed, across our country.
The Government should be seeking to build consensus on these and other issues, not tacking to the political right. If this Government cannot or will not renegotiate the deal in a sensible rather than ideological direction and they are not willing to stand aside then they should not rule out any option to inject democracy into this process.
I counsel Members in this House to exercise caution. I have heard some Members, and even some Ministers, describe another referendum as “a politicians’ vote” even though they know that it may turn out to be the only route to take to resolve an otherwise irresolvable impasse. I have heard others castigate what they call an elite establishment that they form part of themselves.
Last week, we saw the Leave.EU campaign present George Soros, of all people, as part of an imaginary conspiracy to thwart Brexit. The unpleasant insinuation was very clear. Members in this place must not allow themselves to become carriers for those seeking to stoke division among the British people. The rise in hate crime that has scarred our communities must be stemmed and we, with our privilege of political power, must never shirk our responsibility to reject that hate.
Jeremy Corbyn
I called this debate because we should be having the proper vote this evening at 7 o’clock. Instead, the Prime Minister has disappeared, allegedly looking for assurances somewhere, and all of her Ministers here are incapable of telling us when the actual vote will be. Is it to be next week? Is it to be 21 January? When will it be?
What we have had over the past two and a half years is a Government exercising their contempt for Parliament by the legislation that they have brought forward, with its proliferation of Henry VIII clauses, culminating, historically, in a vote by this House finding them to be in contempt of Parliament itself.
The purpose of this motion today was to allow this House to express its anger at the way in which the Government have treated it. It has also provided a way for many Members on both sides of the House to express their concerns. There is not much support for the Government’s strategy here, not much support for the way that the Prime Minister has run away from this particular issue. Parliament needs to assert itself. This Government are in contempt of Parliament. They are not taking Parliament seriously and are in danger of leading us into a no-deal cliff-edge Brexit, which will be incredibly damaging for the whole country. Today Parliament needs to assert itself. Tomorrow the Government need either to bring a vote here, or to get out of the way and let somebody else take this issue seriously and negotiate properly on behalf of this country.
Question put.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to raise this point of order, having spoken to you about it at the side of the Chair earlier. I should say that I have given the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who is the subject of the point of order, advance notice of it by email and, a few minutes ago, in person.
During proceedings earlier, when the Leader of the Opposition was opening his emergency debate, he took an intervention from a Democratic Unionist party Member, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and during the response of the Leader of the Opposition, I said to my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), that I wished the Leader of the Opposition would answer a question. That prompted the hon. Member for Bolsover to turn around to me and call me “a piece of shit”. He then went on to defend that, telling a journalist that he was just putting me in my place.
As you know, Mr Speaker, I had no desire to raise this formally with you—[Interruption.] If Members will listen, they will learn something. I had hoped to deal with it informally, as you suggested. However, given that the hon. Gentleman shows no sign of having any regret about it, will you reaffirm that it is wrong? Will you reaffirm that Members on both sides should be able to go about this place without being at the tail end of that kind of abuse?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I did counsel that this matter should best be addressed outside the Chamber, perhaps through the usual channels. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, I hope he will understand that, although I am not in any sense arguing the toss with him or disputing the veracity of what he has said, I was not there and I do not know. I would not presume to comment on a conversation that I did not hear. That is the first point.
The second point is really underscored—over decades, if not centuries—by successive editions of “Erskine May”. In essence, it is this: at this place’s best, moderation and good humour are the defining features of parliamentary conduct. We should be able to disagree with each other agreeably or reasonably agreeably. I do not favour anybody being abused.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that I have a very high regard for him, but I have known the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) for 21 years and I hold him in the highest esteem. I am not going to stand here and criticise a Member from the Chair for conduct that I did not witness. I have made the overall point, and I think it would be best if I leave it there. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) has raised his concern, if that was what he felt he had to do. May we leave it there for today? Thank you.
If there are no further points of order, we come now to the Ivory Bill (Programme) (No. 3) motion—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure the House is extremely interested in this motion, as of course it should be.
Ivory Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Ivory Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 4 June 2018 (Ivory Bill (Programme)) and 4 July 2018 (Ivory Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
Question agreed to.
Ivory Bill
Tuesday 11th December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (22 Oct 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 78.
Dr Coffey
It is my great pleasure to be able to open Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the Ivory Bill.
I thank the House for its kindness while I recovered from my illness, and particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who has successfully taken the legislation through to this stage. The Bill is already having an impact internationally, with action on ivory sales now being consulted on or committed to in Cambodia, Laos and Singapore, while the Australian Parliament’s federal inquiry into ivory urged the Australian Government to follow the UK’s approach, which it described as
“a model of best practice.”
The Government made a number of amendments to the Bill during its passage through the other place, in response to the Committees of that House and individual peers. Following careful consideration of the reports of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, the Government tabled a number of amendments to address the concerns raised. The Government also tabled amendments on conclusion of its consultation with the devolved Administrations, to recognise the devolved aspects of the Bill, and in response to concerns raised in the other place over matters of insurance. In setting out the reasoning behind the Lords amendments today, I will focus my remarks on the effect of the amendments. I should point out that many minor and consequential amendments are a direct consequence of the substantive amendments.
The first amendments I will turn to in this group concern powers to make regulations. Amendments 1, 5, 7, 8, 18, 20 and 66 reflect recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. One of the recommendations was that negative resolution regulations should be used instead of guidance to set out certain matters. Amendments 1, 5, 8 and 18 have been made to replace references to guidance with regulations. Amendment 1 refers to the Secretary of State’s power to specify any other matters, in addition to rarity and importance, that experts should take into account when assessing an item for exemption under clause 2. Such other matters will now be specified in regulations, rather than guidance. Amendments 5, 8 and 18 will require that regulations rather than guidance are used to specify any additional information, beyond that already listed in the Bill, that an applicant must provide when applying for an exemption certificate under clause 2 or registration under clause 10 respectively.
Amendments 7 and 20 remove two powers to issue guidance. Those pieces of guidance would have set out how applications for exemption certificates and registrations must be made, for example requiring that applications be made electronically or online. The Government have decided to allow maximum flexibility with regard to how applications may be made, and therefore consider that these powers are no longer necessary. While we expect the majority of registrations to be made online, there will be the facility for owners to request forms by telephone or post. I would like to reassure the House that, while important details will be set out in regulations, the Government will also produce detailed information for users to explain the new system.
A second recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was that the Government should include in the Bill more details about the appeals process. This appeals process is for appeals against the refusal or revocation of an exemption certificate applied for under clause 2. Amendments 10, 11, 13 and 14 provide these further details. The amendments name the first-tier tribunal as the appeal body and set out the main grounds for making an appeal, and the powers of the tribunal.
I turn to the amendments to the powers conferred on officers of the regulator. The Bill refers to these officers as “accredited civilian officers”, and I will do the same. Amendments 21 to 53, 58, 61 and 74 to 78 were made in response to concerns raised by the Constitution Committee, and by other peers, which was concerned about the powers of accredited civilian officers. The Government considered these concerns carefully and have put forward amendments 46 and 47 in response.
Those amendments create after clause 22 new clauses that confer powers of entry and other powers on accredited civilian officers. All other references to powers conferred on accredited civilian officers are to be removed from the Bill, ensuring that their role as assessors of compliance is clearly defined and separate from that of police and customs officers. That is a careful balance, as without accredited civilian officers the duty of assessing compliance would fall solely to the police.
As a result of the amendments, an accredited civilian officer would no longer have the power to enter a premises using a warrant. This will be available only to police and customs officers. An accredited civilian officer would, however, be able to enter a non-dwelling premises that they reasonably believe to be connected to ivory dealing, such as a shop or a warehouse, for the purpose of assessing compliance or if they reasonably believe that there is relevant evidence on that premises. They must give reasonable notice prior to entering.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Both the Asian and the African elephant are threatened with extinction. Just over 350,000 African elephants were counted in 2016, but that is over 100,000 fewer than in 2006. There is no reason to suppose that the number of elephants is not continuing to decline. The decline is almost certainly due to poaching for ivory. No species can continue to lose numbers at that rate without eventually becoming extinct. Unless there is a step-change in the rate at which African elephants are being poached, there will not be any African elephants in the wild in 30 years or so. We cannot possibly stand by and see such an iconic creature become extinct.
CITES estimates that 40 tonnes of ivory were illegally traded in 2016, which is the highest ever recorded. If the trade continues, the poaching will continue. The UK needs to be at the forefront of measures to stop this trade, to prevent the illegal trade that comes through markets in the UK, to enable other countries to close loopholes that traders linked to this country can exploit, and to provide an example to others.
Despite the existing laws governing the ivory trade, the UK is still a major exporter of ivory products. So long as it is legal to trade in pre-1947 ivory without a permit, and to trade in post-1947 ivory with a permit, it becomes far easier for illegal traders to disguise their fresh ivory as antique. Thirty-one per cent. of the total EU exports of ivory items between 2005 and 2014 came from the United Kingdom, and we know that there is a substantial illegal trade, because seizures have continued, and indeed increased, between 2010 and 2014. All those facts led to the consultation that preceded the Bill, and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and the Minister made moral and consensual judgments in allowing and encouraging the evolution of the Bill.
The fundamental problem with the pre-existing legislation on the trade in ivory is that it gives far too wide an exemption for there to be any chance that the trade will come to an end. If, as is intended, the trade in fresh ivory is to cease completely, the expectation that there will be any legal supply of ivory also needs to cease. We need to close down the demand for ivory by rendering the whole trade morally, socially and legally unacceptable. In these circumstances, it is understandable that there are some who find any exemptions unacceptable. The Labour party would tend to support the narrowest possible range of exemptions, and during the passage of the Bill, several attempts have been made to reduce the scope of exemptions. However, during the Bill’s passage through the Lords, all the possible loosening or tightening of these exemptions has been debated, and it would be unhelpful to try to unpick any criteria now.
The Lords amendments that would make the operation of the Bill more effective are most crucial to achieving the closing down of the ivory trade, and we are pleased to see that these amendments are being proposed by the Government. It is entirely right that the details of the operation of the Bill should be laid down in regulations. It is sensible to limit the powers given to accredited civilian officers, and we wholeheartedly support the amendments that the Government have accepted. When there is an appeal against the refusal or revocation of an exemption certificate, it is sensible and effective for the appeal body to be the first-tier tribunal and for that to be on the face of the Bill. I put on record my party’s gratitude to all the Members of the upper House who have helped to steer this Bill through, and in particular, to Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
One issue, however, was raised repeatedly before and during the passage of the Bill: other animal sources of ivory. For the purposes of the Bill, ivory is defined as being from elephants. There is a very real danger that the number of other animals killed for their ivory will increase to try to maintain a supply. This particularly relates to other animals in the CITES schedule of endangered wildlife: walruses, narwhals, hippopotamuses, orcas and sperm whales. We would argue that whether or not there is a consequential increase in the killing of these species, it is wrong and damaging to their chances of survival for trade in the ivory derived from these creatures to continue.
We all want the maximum protection for elephants to commence as soon as possible, so it would be unhelpful to make any attempt to disrupt the Bill’s progress now. However, the opportunity to extend the definition of ivory, and hence the range of species protected by the Bill, rests with the Secretary of State through the making of regulations under the affirmative procedure. We urge him to take that opportunity as soon as possible to cover all the relevant animals in the CITES schedule, as well as others, such as warthogs. Unicorns are apparently very popular at the moment, although, of course, they do not exist. What a terrible shame it would be if, because of our inaction, narwhals, whose horns quite possibly prompted the invention of the unicorn myth, were themselves to become non-existent.
All those who want to live in a world that possesses a rich variety of living animals will welcome the passage of the Bill. By passing it, this Parliament will be making a powerful statement that will carry weight throughout the world, but for that weight to have maximum impact, the Government must use all the instruments and influence at their disposal to persuade other countries to take a similarly strong stance, so that we can stamp out the international ivory trade for good.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) on Second Reading. We must send a clear message at home and internationally that the only ivory we will value is that on a live elephant in the wild. I would like to see a world in which all those attributes that make our diverse species so varied and special—turtles’ shells, tigers’ stripes, ostrich feathers, butterflies’ wings—are appreciated in their proper place, as part of the living creature, and not by killing the animal and cutting off part of its body. We are taking an important step forward here today. Let us not stop with elephants.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a privilege once again to speak on this historic Bill, and I am delighted to see the Minister back in her place, because she has contributed so much to its progress over such a long period. The Scottish National party welcomes that progress and the Lords amendments, which we believe offer clarity and strengthen the processes set out in the Bill. We are also extremely keen that through the Bill the UK continue to show best practice and leadership throughout the world on the work that has to be done to protect species.
We are working together to implement stringent measures to protect and conserve populations of elephants and other endangered species for future generations. The survival of the species is the most important thing and must be realised, so the Bill must be as strong as possible. I want to thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee, who worked so consensually throughout the process. I consider my input into this important process to be one of my proudest achievements in Parliament so far, and I would like to thank everybody for their approach.
We heard compelling evidence in Committee about the unscrupulous nature of ivory poachers. They will stop at nothing, leaving no ivory-bearing species safe. In fact, they trade in death. They also undermine poor and vulnerable communities in developing parts of the world, moving from species to species to make their money. I would like to hear what work the Department for International Development is doing, and what expertise it can lend, to ensure that we protect those vulnerable communities, show leadership and protect people’s jobs and livelihoods, because poaching affects some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in our world.
My daughter has been doing a project in school on narwhals and is very interested in making sure we do all we can to protect not only elephants but narwhals and the other species impacted by ivory poaching. Like me, she would most definitely like to see progress made for all the species affected. The fact that young people are so engaged with this work shows how important it is to future generations and what an historic Bill this is.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on leading on this issue for the SNP. We are all pleased and proud to see the Bill, which was a manifesto commitment at the last election certainly for our party and, I believe, for other parties. It is important to many of my constituents that animal welfare issues are taken very seriously. As she highlights, the importance of that in developing countries cannot be overstated either. It is important that these creatures be protected for future generations, and it is good that there is consensus around the Bill, despite everything else that is happening in politics today.
Dr Cameron
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I think that that is extremely important. This is a truly historic day, although not, perhaps, in the way that we expected it to be.
Scottish National party Members and our constituents throughout Scotland want the Bill to be as strong as possible, so we welcome the news that there will be regulations rather than guidance. We also welcome the clarity on the appeals process, and the clear and definitive guidance on the regulatory powers of the accredited civilian officers.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
It is a bit strange to be discussing a subject like this today, but we are, and I think we should recognise how important the Bill is. I congratulate Opposition Front Benchers, and indeed the Government, on their work.
I was particularly struck by what the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) said. The Chamber should be much fuller than it is at the moment. As she said, what we are doing here is historic. She mentioned her daughter; unfortunately, for me it is grandchildren. As I have asked in other debates, are we to be the generation that sees the obliteration from our planet of some of the most remarkable species that have ever existed? Today we are debating the elephant, but what will people be saying in 20 or 30 years’ time? Every year 20,000 African elephants are poached and slaughtered just for their ivory. The Bill relates to our own country, of course, but hopefully it will act as an inspiration and a lead for other countries.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is it not the case that the Chamber is normally full when we disagree and often empty when we agree with each other? There is an upside to the fact that there are not many Members in the Chamber: the Bill is proceeding by agreement.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something nauseating about a person who would slaughter an endangered animal to produce a trinket?
Vernon Coaker
I absolutely agree that that is nauseating. It is also nauseating that people post photographs of themselves engaging in so-called trophy hunting. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s other point, it is not really a question of whether we agree or disagree. I am attending the debate because I agree with the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow that the importance of this issue should be recognised across the House. Of course there is no disagreement about it—I do not think it is a party political issue. Every single Member of Parliament is appalled by the prospect of elephants and other species being slaughtered for their ivory, and the Bill is an important step forward.
I visit school after school, as do all Members, and meet young people after young people, from all walks of life, who are simply sickened by what is happening. Unless we as a world wake up, these animals—whether they be elephants, whales, giraffes or any other species—will become extinct. It is all very well for us to say “It is difficult, and it is tough”, but the Bill is a step forward, so I am not criticising the Government. It is tough and difficult, but we must not be the generation that sees the end of these species on our planet.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
We have a degree of unity in this debate, and I think we all agree about this elephant ivory Bill, but those of us who were on the Bill Committee and who spoke in previous stages in the House argue that the protection is not the same for the other species we talked about—I mentioned the narwhal in Committee and in the House, and there is also the rhino, the walrus and others. Is it not a failure that we are not including all those species in the Bill?
Vernon Coaker
Of course that is a weakness in the Bill, but the Minister and our Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), mentioned—this is my understanding, too—that the Secretary of State has committed to consulting on extending it to other species. I say to the Secretary of State that this is urgent. Public consultation can take a year or two years before the Government review it. I say to the Secretary of State—I know that he and I agree on this issue, if not others—that there is an urgency about this and we have to get a move on.
I say to our own country and the world that we need to wake up. If we do not wake up, our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will say to the Secretary of State, to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, and to me and other Members here, “What were you doing? What did you do? How did you stop this?” And everybody will say, “Well, it’s terrible and awful and a disgrace.” That is not good enough—we all need to use the sickening feeling we have to demand more of ourselves and this Parliament.
The last point I want to make is that today and other days have obviously been dominated by discussions about Brexit, but our constituents often ask us what else is happening while that debate is going on. I hope that at least some of the comments made in the Chamber about the important step forward being taken through the Bill will be reported, and that some of the young people out there—whether in the school of the daughter of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, my grandchildren’s school or others—will learn that this Parliament has been listening and trying to do what we can to ensure that the great animals, including elephants, are saved for future generations.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I also welcome the move to put this legislation in place, and I welcome the Lords amendments, but for those of us who served on the Bill Committee there are still some questions, which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin). I want to ask about some of the things I was banging on about during the previous stages of the Bill.
First, we talked about the enforcement of the legislation, particularly in respect of online sales, which can be difficult. Secondly, I would like to know about the future funding of the National Wildlife Crime Unit after 2020. Can the Minister give us some clarity and assurances on that? Most importantly, as other Members have mentioned, there is the question of when the Government expect to launch the consultation on extending the scope of the Bill to animals such as hippos and narwhals. If we really want to end the trade in ivory it is imperative that there be no debate about what kind of ivory it is and whether it is covered by this Bill. I urge the Secretary of State to clarify that point.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I also welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward, and our Front-Bench team as well, but I think everybody would say that it is just a step in the right direction and there is still a huge amount of work to do. We know about legal trophy hunting, and I would like the Government to clamp down on individuals who are still offering tours on safari to take out these wonderful beasts. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said: there is an imperative on our generation to stop this. We all know of American tourists who come over here—I had the misfortune once of meeting somebody who said, “My daughter’s into hunting, you should see what she’s taken down”, and showed me sick photos of bloodied beautiful bears and lions that she had killed in the Serengeti and elsewhere in Africa. That has to stop, and I hope that the Government will look again at this issue.
I also hope that the Government will go beyond the ivory trade and look at other wonderful animals, including whales. I hope that they will ban items such as whales’ teeth, for example. I hope that they will create a real stigma around trophy hunters, so that when people show trophy hunting pictures others will find them sick and distressing. I am picking on Americans here, but I have seen elected officials with pictures on their walls of hunts that they have taken part in. That has to stop.
I hope the Government will also recognise that this trade is bringing about criminality and mafia practices. I hope that this is just the start of a wider debate, that the consultation will be short and that the Government will bring forward extra legislation very soon to ban trophy hunting and the companies that send people on hunting tours.
Dr Coffey
With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the hon. Members who have asked questions about various elements of the amendments. First, I should like to say that 11 December will linger in my mind because we have now reached this stage, and I hope that once the House has agreed to these amendments, Her Majesty will give us Royal Assent very soon. I also want to commend the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has really been pushing this agenda. Indeed, he is now the chair of the Ivory Alliance 2024, a global organisation that is trying to ensure that this kind of legislation can be spread around the world in order to stamp out the demand for ivory totally.
The hon. Members for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) asked about other species. We have committed to gathering evidence on the trade in ivory from other species as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent. It is important to state that any extension of the Bill through secondary legislation needs to be robust and evidence-based, and also that our original consultation was only on elephant ivory, so we will need to ensure that we consult appropriately and get the full evidence before deciding on the next steps. It is also fair to say that, while we have not been too presumptuous, we have already initiated all the work that needs to be done to get that further work under way. The IT projects are under way, for example, and we are working on other elements, although we have not yet started writing the secondary legislation referred to in the Lords amendments that the House will be voting on today.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) asked about international elements of this. We should be proud of our record around the world on these matters, and the Government agree about the importance of sustaining and supporting work to suppress demand and ensuring that we proactively fund a range of training for anti-poaching efforts. We also acknowledge the importance of supporting sustainable livelihoods in the communities affected. The Department’s illegal wildlife trade challenge fund has supported 47 projects with a value of more than £40 million in developing countries, and we continue to work not only with the Department for International Development but with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence on those activities. We also continue to make the case in the European Union for doing even more.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) asked about enforcement in relation to online sales. The Bill has been drafted from the outset with online and physical sales in mind. It prohibits commercial activities involving ivory, regardless of where those activities take place. Clause 12 makes it an offence to facilitate the breaching of the ban, and that could cover online sales forums that allow sellers to advertise items, make contact with buyers and accept payments. She also asked about the National Wildlife Crime Unit. Our Department currently co-funds that unit with the Home Office and the police. She will be aware that we have to agree our spending review for future commitments, but I know that the NWCU is highly valued and I am sure that we will want to continue to see its work proceed.
I hope that I have outlined to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) the actions that are already under way, and I agree with him that this will be an important piece of legislation. The Bill is so important, and I am very pleased to have been part of it. The House should take great pride in it and in ensuring that we continue to save wildlife, wherever it may be.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 78 agreed to.
Fuel Poverty
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fuel poverty.
I hope that no Members will leave the Chamber during such an important debate. I have just spilt a glass of water over the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I apologise. [Interruption.] Yes, it is not the worst thing that has happened to Members today from what I have heard.
Fuel poverty is debated annually in the House. Let me give some background to that. Our 2015 fuel poverty strategy for England committed us to ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny as we take action to tackle fuel poverty. That commitment to transparency is why we created the Committee on Fuel Poverty and why we hold the annual debates.
The problem of fuel poverty crosses party lines and needs action from many different stakeholders. I welcome all contributions today and the positive way in which I know they will be made. I am looking at the shadow spokesman when saying that and pleading with her to show her usual grace and dignity in opposing me.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am afraid that the Minister cannot expect quite so much grace and dignity from me—I apologise. To be serious, there is good reason to be deeply concerned about the fuel poverty statistics because we have just heard from the Office for National Statistics that last winter, the figure for premature winter deaths exceeded 50,000— the highest for more than 40 years. With respect, the Government are not doing anything near enough on fuel poverty, and I want to put that on the record at the beginning of the debate.
Richard Harrington
I would ascribe grace and dignity to the hon. Lady’s usual contributions. This is a serious matter. The hon. Lady is right that last winter’s severely cold weather included wind-chill factors of minus 10° C and I accept what she says about the statistics. However, I do not accept her assertion that the Government have done nothing about that. If she will bear with me for the rest of my contribution, I will answer her point, and if I do not, I am sure that she will intervene.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope that the Minister will say something about rural areas. Fuel poverty is one of the biggest problems for rural areas because of the nature of the properties, which are often older, with older people living in them, but also because the schemes do not reach them. In particular, the energy company obligation—ECO—has completely failed and I hope that the Minister will say something about that. It is a tragedy that people in rural areas are more likely to die early because of fuel poverty.
Richard Harrington
I will indeed mention that. Various groups have lobbied all Members of Parliament to contribute to the debate and I agree with the basis of what they say.
It is also fair to say that fuel poverty is a devolved matter and that the debate originates from the fuel poverty strategy for England.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Richard Harrington
If the hon. Lady gives me a second, I hope that I will mention the point that she was about to make. Fuel poverty is a problem across the United Kingdom. I am sure that we all have constituents who struggle to keep their homes warm during the winter. The weather has no borders and does not understand devolved legislation. I am sure that the hon. Lady will confirm that.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister has said that measures to tackle fuel poverty have been devolved. The real drivers of fuel poverty are the high cost of fuel—the tax on which is reserved, as he knows—and, of course, people simply not having enough money. We know about the hardship that universal credit is causing, so I would say that the real and fundamental causes of fuel poverty are very much in the power of this Government to tackle, beyond energy efficiency measures.
Richard Harrington
I agree with the hon. Lady. The Government have many different strategies, and energy efficiency measures are one of them. The importance of working together with the devolved authorities on this issue was never in more evidence than during last winter’s beast from the east—I see the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is not in his seat. As temperatures plunged, many households throughout the UK faced broken boilers and frozen pipes. The sustained cold weather made it even more difficult for those on the lowest incomes and in the worst properties to be able to heat their home.
As has been mentioned, last month the Office for National Statistics reported there were 50,000 excess winter deaths last winter. The figure was said by the ONS to be unusually high because of multiple causes, including the virulent strain of flu, the relative ineffectiveness of the influenza vaccine and the colder than average winter temperatures. However, old, inefficient and cold homes, combined with occupants who are vulnerable to the impact of living in a cold home, certainly have been a factor.
The fabric of our building stock cannot continue to be a source of ill health. We have put in place an ambitious framework to tackle this issue, based on energy efficiency being the best long-term solution to tackle fuel poverty.
Caroline Lucas
I do not know how the Minister can say he has put in place something that is so ambitious when no public funds are going into domestic fuel poverty and energy efficiency, for the first time in years. In the past we had Warm Front and other schemes, but right now the Government are putting no taxpayers’ money into these schemes.
Richard Harrington
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady, and I will outline the £3 billion-worth of Government help.
Our 2017 clean growth strategy sets an ambition of improving as many homes as possible to energy performance certificate band C by 2035, wherever practical, cost-effective and affordable, but the truth is that the most vulnerable must be helped first. We are committed to improving the homes of the fuel poor to band C five years earlier, by 2030, and we have set interim milestones to keep us on track. As many fuel-poor homes as reasonably practical will be improved to band E by 2020, and to band D by 2025.
A key way in which we are delivering energy efficiency measures to meet that ambition is through the energy company obligation, which has led to energy efficiency upgrades to nearly 2 million homes across England, Scotland and Wales since 2013. Recognising the need to support low-income and vulnerable households first, we have taken action to ensure that ECO is targeted at those who need it most.
When the scheme was first introduced in 2013, 30% of ECO spending was focused on addressing fuel poverty, and by 2015 it had been increased to 70%. Today 100% of the energy company obligation is focused directly on low-income and vulnerable households, and we have introduced a new innovative element that will bring down the long-term cost of low-carbon measures.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The ECO programme has been very successful indeed, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the barrier technologies of insulation in roofs and better windows, doors and floors that make a difference but the introduction of clean tech in homes? Clean tech can often deliver significant savings, too, so I hope that, as a result of the recent consultation, things like smart thermostats will now be included in the ECO catalogue.
Richard Harrington
As usual, my hon. Friend is well informed and well spoken on this subject. I share his hope, and he makes a significant point. I hope he will see this come to pass.
We are also clear that landlords should play a role in upgrading the energy efficiency of the properties they rent out. The private sector regulations will require landlords to improve the energy efficiency of band F and band G properties so that their tenants will be living in properties rated band E or above by 2020. We expect that these regulations, which require landlords to invest up to £3,500 on their property, will enable all privately rented F and G properties to receive support, and about half of these homes will be improved to an energy performance level of band E. This action to tackle the worst homes first—those rated F or G—is consistent with the approach set out in our fuel poverty strategy, but we will be consulting on options to ensure rental properties are improved to the band C target level by 2030. The private rental sector has to make its contribution as well.
We recognise that long-term sustainable solutions such as the ones I have mentioned are little comfort to those who are cold now. It is important to complement this approach with more immediate support, which is why we extended the warm home discount to 2021, so that it can continue to provide more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households with a £140 rebate off their energy bill each winter.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Minister is talking about taking immediate action. It is some time now since the Dieter Helm review came out with a number of recommendations to sort out the chaos of the subsidies going into the alternative energy business, which would take the cost pressure off the most vulnerable households. The Minister does not look as though he has read it. Its approach would take the pressure off the most vulnerable households, so why do the Government not respond and implement those recommendations?
Richard Harrington
I will make one small change to what the hon. Gentleman said, in that I have read that report and I have met Dieter Helm. I will happily send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the recent energy speech that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made. If the hon. Gentleman does not have a copy, I will send it to him with my compliments—I might even get the Secretary of State to sign it for him for Christmas.
We extended the warm home discount to 2021, so that it can continue to provide more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households with a £140 rebate off their energy bill each winter. In addition, the winter fuel payments provide all pension households—people of pension age in the households—with additional financial support worth up to £300. Cold weather payments also provide relief to the elderly, the vulnerable and those who need extra support with their fuel bills during spells of cold weather. Last year, that alone provided an estimated £98 million in cold weather payments to keep people warm in vulnerable households.
James Heappey
The Minister, or at least the Treasury, will know who receives cold weather payments. Is any measure taken of the energy-efficiency of the homes in which those recipients live and therefore of whether, rather than just spending money every time the weather is cold, we might improve the energy-efficiency of those properties and so reduce the requirement for those payments to be received in the future?
Richard Harrington
If it is acceptable to my hon. Friend, I will write to him on that subject, because I need to speak to the Treasury about its analysis, which is what his question is about.
We are providing all consumers, including the fuel poor, with more control over their bills. The smart meter programme will mean millions of customers will be in control of their energy use, helping them to save money. A new safeguard tariff coming into effect on 1 January will protect 11 million consumers from high bills. On average, households will save £76 a year, with some saving a lot more. Significantly, as a result of these measures, the average fuel poverty gap has decreased from £379 in 2011 to £326 in 2016. Over that five-year period, the total fuel poverty gap has decreased by £88 million in real terms. Although it is important to recognise that progress is being made, we acknowledge that we still have a long way to go. The clean growth strategy included an ambitious set of policies for homes, the extension of energy-efficiency support through to 2028 and at least £640 million per year. We will be reviewing what the best form of support this will be in 2022, and I would welcome the views on this topic of hon. Members here today.
We will update the fuel poverty strategy for England in 2019, and we look forward to receiving good ideas on how we can make further progress. The new strategy will align our work on fuel poverty with our clean growth strategy and industrial strategy. We had always planned for the fuel poverty strategy to be a living, evolving document, because changing technology and innovation will mean that what worked in the past will not necessarily be the best plan for the future.
Graham Stringer
Will the Minister explain to the House why, as smart meters are rolled out in the north of England, we are not getting the most up-to-date and best smart meters, which people in Watford are getting? Why is the north being discriminated against?
Richard Harrington
I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that my constituents in Watford are doing well out of smart meters, and they are, but the pace of the expansion is under continual review with the suppliers. The Secretary of State’s powers were extended in the recent Smart Meters Act 2018 and will be used to encourage take-up of smart meters, which is gathering momentum. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, though, because it is patchy in different parts of the country.
The main point is that for the first time we have an opportunity to ensure that our fuel poverty strategy is joined up with our holistic plan to improve energy efficiency throughout Britain. The new strategy will focus on better ways of identifying those in fuel poverty and targeting our assistance to them directly. It will help us to identify the most cost-effective means of achieving our target in 2020, 2025 and 2030.
Let me bring the focus back to our main goal, which is to improve the lives of those in fuel poverty. No one deserves to live in a cold home. We have the opportunity next year to set out a refreshed fuel poverty strategy that will lay out an updated plan for meeting the 2030 target. I would welcome hon. Members’ views based on their experience of fuel poverty, so that we can work together to set out a new, ambitious plan. This issue transcends party lines and affects us all. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ questions and contributions on this topic.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House will be aware that this is a necessarily short debate. I hope that we will manage without a formal time limit, but I advise Members who wish to take part to prepare around five minutes of speaking notes, and no more.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
As we enter another winter, I welcome the opportunity to stand opposite the Minister in what will hopefully be a collegiate debate. I regret, though, the urgent necessity once again to debate fuel poverty in this Chamber.
Fuel poverty epitomises what a UN statement recently described as the “great misery” that has been “inflicted unnecessarily” on the UK’s poor, and in particular on the millions of children locked into a cycle of poverty. The UK is one of the world’s largest and wealthiest economies, with all the means at its disposal to eliminate fuel poverty, and yet it is not being eliminated. The latest data shows there were more households living in fuel poverty in England in 2016 than in 2015. The figures were higher in 2015 than in 2014, when in turn they were higher than in 2013. It is not just the extent of fuel poverty that is on the rise, but the depth of fuel poverty—that is, the difference between households’ energy bills and what they can afford to pay. Fuel poverty is not only persisting, but getting worse. Members should be in no doubt that this is not an unavoidable fact of life. It is a political choice.
According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of excess winter deaths throughout England and Wales last winter exceeded 50,000. As we have already heard, that is the highest recorded number for more than 40 years. The figures were described by the charity National Energy Action as “preventable and shameful”. According to that same group, at least 10,000 of those premature deaths were due to vulnerable people being unable to heat their homes adequately. I would like Members to reflect on the people behind those numbers. It means somebody’s neighbour, somebody’s parent, and somebody’s child—10,000 people dying before their time just because they could not keep warm.
The terrible impact extends beyond preventable deaths. I have previously mentioned the impact on health. We know that children living in fuel poverty are twice as likely to suffer from respiratory problems, such as asthma and bronchitis, and that fuel poverty is associated with low weight gains in infants and higher levels of hospital admissions in the first three years of life. Adolescents living in cold homes are at five times the risk of having multiple mental health problems. On top of that, there are the negative effects on educational performance, emotional resilience and wellbeing. When combined with the fact that fuel poverty is not evenly distributed throughout the country, but concentrated in pockets of urban and rural poverty, we have the makings of what can only be described as a social crisis. In some parts of my constituency, fuel poverty affects one quarter of all households, and over one quarter of single-parent households. We know that it is a problem locally because, between April 2017 and March 2018, of those people who came to a citizens advice bureau in Salford and Eccles about energy issues, the most common was dealing with fuel debt repayments.
In last year’s debate, I stated that 22% of households in Salford have prepayment meters compared with the national average of 15%, so I was particularly troubled by a report this year by Citizens Advice on the phenomenon of self-disconnection by those using prepayment meters. The report found that around 140,000 households in Great Britain could not afford to top up their meter in the past 12 months and that 88% of those households contained a child or someone with a long-term health issue. Half of those surveyed said that keeping their meter topped up was a daily concern, which is particularly shocking when we consider that more than 4 million households currently use prepayment meters.
Fuel poverty is not just an issue for those on prepayment meters. Following an unprecedented number of energy price hikes by suppliers rushing to increase prices in advance of the price cap, about which I will say more later, household energy debt has surged over the past year by 24%. It is often said that fuel poverty is due to the confluence of three factors that we have heard about very briefly already: low income, high fuel prices, and poor energy efficiency. I wish to say a few words about each.
After a decade of austerity and lost growth, annual wages are still £760 lower than they were in 2008. Is it any surprise therefore that 47% of all fuel-poor households in England are in full or part-time work? For those out of work, the benefits freeze has deepened fuel poverty as families, already struggling on very little, have experienced a real-terms income cut. The industry body, the Energy and Utilities Alliance, has noted that the introduction of universal credit, which leaves households without an income during the five-week changeover, is pushing more people towards making the decision not to heat their home and to face the dilemma of heating or eating. Raising the national minimum wage to £10 an hour, ending the welfare freeze, and reversing cuts to people with disabilities would go a long way to tackling absolute poverty, which is at the root of so much fuel poverty.
On the cost of energy, last month Ofgem finally confirmed that an energy price cap will come into force in January 2019. That is almost two years after the Prime Minister first announced a price cap as Conservative policy, and it is set at a level that is hundreds of pounds higher than the cheapest tariffs available. In the intervening period, the big six energy suppliers have hiked their tariffs, some on multiple occasions. Ofgem has announced that the cap is likely to be revised upwards within months of being introduced.
In addition, wholesale prices are rising, I feel obliged to mention research published just yesterday by the UK Energy Research Centre, which finds that a no-deal or hard Brexit could increase electricity generation costs by £270 million a year. That is another reason, if we needed one, to redouble our efforts in this House to avoid no deal or a bad Brexit deal.
Labour’s 2017 manifesto pledged an immediate emergency price cap to ensure that the average dual fuel household energy bill remained below £1,000 per year. Had that cap been introduced in July 2017, it would have saved households £2.85 billion between July 2017 and November 2018.
James Heappey
I know the hon. Lady does a lot of reading into energy policy, so she will know that a price cap can only be a temporary correction to the market. What is her longer-term plan for delivering a fairer energy price?
Rebecca Long Bailey
The hon. Gentleman is very learned on the topic of fuel poverty, and I agree with what he said. The Labour party has persistently stated that an energy price cap is a sticking plaster while the wider energy market is reformed, because it is not currently working in the interest of consumers. It forms part of the wider plan of Labour’s energy policy portfolio completely to reform the energy system as we know it.
Network costs represent over one quarter of the cost of a gas and electricity bill, but customers have been getting a bad deal. Citizens Advice estimates that network companies will make £7.5 billion in unjustified profits over an eight-year period. A recent report by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit found even more excessive returns captured by distribution network operators than Citizens Advice had predicted, with the six distribution network operator parent companies posting an average profit margin of 30.4%. By bringing energy networks back into public ownership, Labour would reinvest and pass on to customers the money currently paid out in dividends.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I will make some progress before taking an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
I turn to energy efficiency. A well-insulated home saves households money, makes homes naturally warmer and more pleasant places to live, and cuts energy use, helping to tackle climate change. At least £1 for every £4 spent heating UK homes is wasted due to poor insulation. Improving the energy efficiency of the UK’s housing stock, which is among the oldest and least efficient in Europe, really should be a no-brainer, so how are we currently faring?
According to the Committee on Climate Change, insulation rates have fallen by 90% since 2012. The energy company obligation—known as ECO—which is funded by a levy on bills, is the only remaining domestic energy efficiency delivery mechanism in England. It has also been cut from £1.2 billion a year when it was first introduced in 2013 to £720 million per annum in its second phase, and has been reduced still further to £640 million—effectively a 50% cut. It is therefore no surprise that the Government are off track to meet their targets.
In their 2015 fuel poverty strategy, the Government set a target of ensuring that fuel-poor homes are upgraded to an energy efficiency rating of EPC band C by 2030. But according to the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank, the Government will not meet their target for upgrading fuel-poor homes until at least 2091. That is why, as a policy suggestion to the Minister, the Labour party proposed investing £2.3 billion a year to provide financial support for households to insulate their homes, and for local authorities to drive take-up and delivery of insulation schemes, in order to bring 4 million homes up to EPC band C by the end of one parliamentary term.
Labour’s plans included fully covering the cost of insulation for low-income homeowners and all social housing, which will particularly benefit older people living in fuel poverty and pensioners on low income struggling to cover the cost of sky-rocketing energy bills. This would have delivered savings of at least £270 a year to affected households. As well as this investment, Labour was also committed to tightening the regulation of privately rented homes, blocking poorly insulated homes from being rented out.
I have tried to set out just some of the measures that will tackle the causes of fuel poverty: low incomes, high fuel costs and poor energy efficiency. I am not seeking to make party political points, but rather to indicate the level of commitment needed if we are truly to address the problem, because what is the alternative? Are we really willing to accept preventable and shameful winter mortality at current levels? Are we really willing to accept that we live in a country where some people go to bed early to stay warm, leave the curtains drawn and even paper over their windows? Is it acceptable that people, often vulnerable people, have to seek out a library, a café or even an A&E department just to stay warm?
I do not believe that anybody in this House wants to see that, but wanting to end fuel poverty is simply not enough; rather, we must be willing to deploy the resources available to us to bring an end to what remains an avoidable indignity for millions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am afraid that I was over-optimistic about the five minutes. We will need to have a time limit, and it has to be three minutes.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I will rattle through what I have to say very quickly, then, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As both Front Benchers have said, the key to solving fuel poverty is twofold: on the one hand, we reduce the price of energy; and on the other, we help consumers to use less energy. In the two minutes and 30 seconds remaining, I will very quickly whizz through some of the things that we could do that are relatively low-hanging fruit for the Government. First, the costs of running the energy system are growing too much, and we have a number of very comfortable, monopolistic companies that perhaps we could screw down on a little in order to see whether the growth in system costs could be curbed.
Secondly, while the price cap is a useful temporary measure, there is a huge opportunity for market reform in order to take advantage of the very cheap renewable energy that can now be generated, and the flexibility that now exists within the system that can make use of those renewables without the need for quite so much in the way of back-up generation.
We can also make some really good progress on allowing energy and heat as a service to come through as a proposition to consumers. I would like Ofgem to do more to work with the companies that are likely to provide those services so that we can put in place a regulatory construct that will allow consumers to start to take advantage of this sort of initiative very quickly. I know that the Government are leading on the changes to the feed-in tariff, but we must start to look at how we encourage people to generate behind the meter for their consumption behind the meter, because that will reduce their energy costs, too.
But generation is just half of the story—using less is very important, too. Many of the measures I have mentioned, particularly things like heat and energy as a service, will naturally lend themselves to greater energy efficiency, particularly as the companies that are delivering those services are quite likely to want to install the energy efficiency measures within a home or business because they make a greater margin by being able to do that in the most efficient way possible. Lots of companies out there are innovating all the time in terms of what can be put in walls, rooms, doors, windows and floors in order to let less heat escape from a business or a home.
James Heappey
Not only do I have lots of them in my constituency—I have just bought one and am in the process of renovating it. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In rural areas, the deadly combination of solid walls and not being on the gas grid can often mean that fuel poverty is at its most acute in areas that look relatively affluent. Tackling that can and should be a priority, but it is monstrously expensive. When someone is going through the process of renovating a home, they are making lots of decisions, and the energy efficiency measures are by far the least glamorous of those that they choose when the alternatives are things like decorating, carpets and all the other stuff.
Those who live in fuel poverty are having to make choices that we really should not be asking them to make when the technology exists out there for us to help them to use less energy through what we put in their walls, roofs and floors, but also through the tech that we put in their homes that can help them to manage their demand in a really helpful way. I know that the Minister is very focused on this and that the Housing and Planning Minister also recognises the enormous value in setting higher standards so that those who live in social housing have better energy efficiency.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I will rush through my notes because other Members want to speak, but we need more time for this kind of debate in the House, not the curtailed version we have tonight.
Far too many people are suffering cold and damp, in fuel poverty, and they should not be doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) pointed out, two of the most important drivers for fixing fuel poverty are reserved to this place: low incomes and fuel prices. Austerity has been one of the key drivers of fuel poverty for people across the nations of the UK. The UN special rapporteur has been mentioned tonight, so I will not cover that ground again, but he said that the
“manifestations are clear for all to see.”
Westminster austerity increases winter austerity for people.
Patricia Gibson
What my hon. Friend is saying is very important. I grew up in a household where the heating was never put on, and I remember trying to do schoolwork with my freezing hands trying to hold a pen. He has talked about the factors that drive fuel poverty. Does he agree that the high cost of nuclear will do nothing but exacerbate the high cost of energy, with the extortionate price rates involved hitting poorer families hard?
Drew Hendry
Indeed. I can only agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come back to that.
The key thing is that universal credit is driving the problems that people face in their houses. They have a genuine problem and have to endure pain in choosing whether to eat or put on the heating. That is not a cliché. It is a fact of life for people living in fuel poverty. Over the past five years and more, we have seen it in my constituency, with people suffering from the pilot of universal credit to its roll-out today.
The worst fuel poverty comes in areas of low income and, typically, rural areas. Unemployment levels are almost irrelevant when it comes to universal credit. The measures that the Chancellor introduced in his Budget do nothing for those already struggling on universal credit. They do nothing to reverse the cuts and nothing for those who are caught by the odious rape clause. Indeed, they do nothing to address the benefits freeze—even the transition funding will not come into place until next year. The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the benefits freeze will cost low-income families £210 in 2019-20. Those are poor people, women, ethnic minorities, children, single parents and those with disabilities.
Measures can be introduced to reduce fuel poverty—for example, on insulation. The UK Government cut grants in 2015, and as a result, new insulation dropped by 90%. The new ECO programme is cautiously welcomed, but as green think-tank E3G pointed out,
“At least twice as much support is needed for low income households who struggle with their energy bills.”
It went on to say that the Government of Scotland grasped the importance of energy efficiency and that, including ECO support, they
“invest four times and twice as much per capita respectively in low income household energy efficiency as is invested in England.”
Low-income households need energy efficiency, and they need that to be invested in.
The Scottish Government’s green homes network has helped thousands of people to stay warm and save energy. It is clear to everyone except the UK Government that new industries such as carbon capture and storage and hydrogen need to be invested in. After the betrayal of Peterhead, with that £1 billion project withdrawn, it will not cut it for the UK Government to replace that with 10% of the investment promised. These new technologies need proper investment.
The Energy Saving Trust said that Scotland is not only “leading the way” in energy efficiency but
“regularly outperforms the rest of the UK when it comes to slashing carbon emissions.”
On public and community ownership, Local Energy Scotland, the Scottish Government’s arm, is going forward with local energy projects and community and renewable schemes through the community and renewable energy scheme—CARES. However, Ofgem’s consultation seems targeted to hit homes and businesses that generate their own electricity. The aim, it says, is to shift the burden to others; those who use more will pay less, and those who use less will pay more. That disproportionately hits those in areas of high fuel poverty.
We need fair pricing. People who are living off the grid need to be treated fairly. We need an off-grid regulator, and we need to bring forward payments for off-grid people. In 2012, my former colleague Mike Weir MP introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Winter Fuel Allowance Payments (Off Gas Grid Claimants) Bill, to help bring forward the timing of winter fuel payments to enable people to purchase fuel at a time of year when prices were likely to be lower. Yet this is not regulated.
Ofgem seems more interested in protecting the energy companies. It has also refused to do anything about the differential that households, particularly those in Highland and other rural areas, pay in energy unit prices. In Highland, it costs 4p a unit more for people to pay for their energy than in other parts of the UK. An Ofgem spokesman recently said to The Press and Journal:
“Network companies face different costs for serving customers in GB regions, for both gas and electricity. Licenced network operators recover their allowed revenues, set by Ofgem under the”—
RIIO, or “revenue = incentives + innovation + outputs”—
“price control arrangements, from customers located within their licensed areas... This is a reasonable way to allocate these costs between customers. Ultimately it would be for Government to decide if changes should be made to these existing arrangements. Typical network costs are around 25 per cent (about £250) of overall energy bills.”
Ofgem is more interested in looking after the energy companies than those consumers who are actually struggling. We need a fair redistribution of these costs, which does not mean costs rising for other people, but actually brings down the level for those who are suffering in rural areas. There is poor value and there are poor services.
In Scotland, despite benefiting from its energy wealth, Westminster has left an energy system in which consumers are struggling to pay their bills. Despite the huge renewable resources—25% of Europe’s offshore wind—and oil and gas tax revenues of £350 billion since the 1970s, investment has been in failing and failed nuclear power. Wylfa, for example, is rumoured to be benefiting from £6 billion in equity and £9 billion in debt funding from this Government. It has a strike price deal that, at £77.50, is way above a fair rate—it is, indeed, below Hinkley’s eye-watering £92.50, but way above offshore wind’s £57.50—and who pays? The consumer—those in fuel poverty.
The Scottish Government are bringing forward their publicly owned energy company, and we look forward to seeing the benefits of that. I will wind up soon, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you must understand that there is a lot of ground to cover in this debate, and we have been given very little time for everybody to do so. We look forward to bringing forward a publicly owned energy company to reduce bills for people in Scotland and to help them out of the poverty trap of fuel poverty, low wages and the crippling application of universal credit and austerity to people in their homes and across our communities. It is time that the UK Government took some responsibility for this and took action to alleviate the pain that people suffer on fuel poverty.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I cannot thank the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken by mentioning his constituency because that would use up all of my time.
There are two things that I think are important for the people of Willenhall and Bloxwich who may be suffering from fuel poverty. The first is that, even if they have to insulate their lofts themselves, the cost of that for a three-bedroom property is approximately £300, and Which? estimates that the payback would be in two years. That is a saving of £225 per year on their fuel bills, so it is definitely worth the investment. The second is that people do not switch energy provider. To me, it is heartbreaking that 60% of people surveyed a year ago had not switched their energy provider. Doing so would afford them a great opportunity to save money. I would like to say to the people of my constituency, “Please get your loft insulated, and please make sure that you are getting the best deal from your energy provider”.
I would like to talk briefly about my time with the YMCA. When I started working at the YMCA, it had a 72-bed direct access hostel for people who had previously been rough sleepers. It was a revelation to go to that building, which was 60 years old. Originally, it served as a home for men who had come to work in Birmingham and needed somewhere to live. As I have said, it was then used to provide accommodation for former rough sleepers.
The YMCA did not have much cash, so when I got there it still had the original Robin Hood Beeston boiler. The boiler was over 50 years old; it had originally started life as a coal-powered boiler before being converted to run on oil and subsequently on gas. It was probably the most inefficient heating system in the UK, heating a 72-bed hostel, with very poor control—absolutely crazy. I would frequently get there during the summer to find the heating on and the building so hot that the windows were open, because it did not have a sophisticated system.
However, along came Homes England with a grant of £2.6 million. The YMCA was able to raise £700,000 itself and has now introduced a much more efficient heating system. The building has been completely clad to improve the U-values and has had new windows fitted. As a result, the cost of heating the building has dropped dramatically, and when we are talking about people with very low funds contributing through a service charge to heat the building, that is an essential improvement. That is what this Government have done to help.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
If ever we needed an example of how the Brexit omnishambles is squeezing out time for important debates on issues that matter to our constituents, this is a perfect case in point. There is so much to say. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency, I wish we had more time.
For example, a report published by the Institute for Public Policy Research in June showed that the Government are set to miss their fuel poverty targets by 60 years. It is not that the Government do not know how to reverse the situation—indeed, they have even set a goal to do so, in both their manifesto and their recent clean growth strategy. The tragedy is that in recent years the Government have scrapped, reversed or shelved many of the measures that could actually have helped. It is truly shocking that, for example, we are in the absurd situation where the UK Government are not investing any public funds in improving domestic energy efficiency through insulation, particularly in England. In 2018, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, that is nothing short of a moral failure.
The frustration is that many of us know that tackling fuel poverty by investing in energy efficiency could be a real win-win, bringing people’s fuel bills down, tackling climate change and creating jobs. Despite clear evidence of that win-win-win, the funding for energy efficiency in this year’s Budget was zilch. Quite why the Government can find £30 billion to fix potholes and improve roads but not to keep people warm is beyond me.
Many of us had hoped that the Government would use their response to the national infrastructure assessment to make progress on this issue. They did not. Published quietly alongside this year’s Budget, it did not even make reference to the Government’s statutory fuel poverty targets, let alone commit to the additional investment needed to meet them. The impact of the Government’s complacency will be felt long beyond the effects of fuel poverty today. As we know, a few months ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report, saying that we have just 12 years to halve global emissions if there is to be any chance of meeting the 1.5° threshold.
The Committee on Climate Change has repeatedly made it clear that improving energy efficiency through better insulating our homes is crucial to our existing climate targets. We need those policies now, well before the long-term targets of the Climate Change Act 2008 are amended in line with the latest IPCC report and the Paris climate agreement. The withdrawal of incentives has cut home insulation installations to 5% of 2012 levels. That is a shameful failure, and it has to change. We need a massive programme of home insulation if we are to make a meaningful contribution to the global project of protecting our planet and our children’s future. We also need to have not just the big six energy companies, which are profiting from this situation; we should have 60,000 energy companies and more, as they do in Germany. We should have real community energy, not as a “nice to have” but as a genuine, essential measure.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of chairing a roundtable organised by the all-party parliamentary carbon monoxide group. The roundtable looked at the link between fuel poverty and carbon monoxide poisoning—perhaps not the most obvious link, but one that the various stakeholders around the table, from National Energy Action to the London fire brigade, identified as a real concern, partly because people were bringing in barbecues as secondary heating. We may have heard about that problem with barbecues, but we do not realise that people are relying on them for heating. We also heard about the use of secondary heating options in homes, such as gas fires that are often unserviced. Last year, only 40% of gas fires were reported by households as having been serviced over the previous 12 years, with a key reason being cost. Sadly, too few people are aware of the gas priority services register. I intend to make people in my constituency more aware of it, as well as the warm home discount scheme.
We have to question how we can have got to that position. The fact is that many people in my constituency are suffering because they do not have enough money. Some are on universal credit. They have disabilities, and their benefits have changed. They have choices to make about whether they heat their home or buy food. Some of our local food banks report that people are asking for food that does not have to be heated but can be eaten straight from the can or the packet, because they cannot afford to cook. In an area like mine, where many people suffer from lung conditions, people should not have to choose between heating and eating—it’s not on.
Energy costs are currently very high. The default tariff cap might be useful, but it still does not resolve the issue of people not having the facilities or the skill to work their way around the energy supply market for the cheapest deal. According to the Committee on Climate Change, progress on energy consumption has stalled. As we have heard, insulation rates have fallen since 2012. Current resources are not sufficient to meet fuel poverty commitments or wider energy efficiency targets set out in the clean growth strategy.
As other hon. Members including the Minister have said, winter deaths exceeded 50,000 last year, many of which were due to fuel poverty. Areas like mine in the north-east have been the hardest hit and have the highest percentage of households in fuel poverty in the country. The spikes in winter deaths due to fuel poverty are both preventable and shameful. The responsibility lies with the Government. They must address fuel poverty and energy efficiency in the comprehensive spending review.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is damning for all of us in this House that the Benches are empty as we debate one of the greatest scandals of our time, fuel poverty.
I first spoke about fuel poverty in January 2011. It was my very first speech in Westminster Hall. That day, I chided the Government for 25,995 winter deaths. Within eight years, that has nearly doubled to 50,100. I know that Ministers like to blame the previous Labour Government, but there is nothing they can say about that—it is on their watch. They are the ones responsible for excess winter deaths and they have a duty to do something about it.
The second time I spoke about fuel poverty was in relation to terminal illnesses. In my constituency, like in many former industrial heartlands, we see large numbers of people with chest and respiratory diseases—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and so on—which mean that they have to turn up their thermostat because they feel the cold more than anybody else. Further to that, I was shocked to discover that many people who have been diagnosed with cancer or other terminal illnesses, such as motor neurone disease, find themselves in abject poverty. Not only can they not afford to pay their food bills, they are struggling to pay their energy bills.
In that second debate, I specifically asked the Government to consider giving people with terminal illnesses an entitlement to a winter fuel payment during the time they are ill, or even, in the case of motor neurone disease, to the end of their life. The Minister at the time said he would look into that. Unfortunately, here we are seven years later and cancer patients and those with terminal illnesses are still suffering. For them and their families I call on the Government today to make it a priority to give people with terminal illnesses some comfort in their final harsh days.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
A quarter of Scottish households are living in fuel poverty. It is clear that that is down to low income and the high cost of fuel. Alongside that, the high cost of nuclear, with the extortionate strike prices involved, is grotesque. Scotland boasts huge renewable resources, including 25% of Europe’s offshore wind resources.
I grew up in a freezing cold household, and I remember, when I was doing my school work, trying to hold a pen with freezing cold hands. The Minister will appreciate that in this day and age, no child and no family should have to live like that. It is time that fuel poverty was tackled in a meaningful way, so that people can enjoy a minimum level of comfort in their homes. That is why what the Scottish Government are doing on defining fuel poverty—we are one of the first European countries to do so—is so important. They have set a target to cut fuel poverty to 5% by 2040. The UK Government must use their powers to do what they can to deal with this fundamental social blight that looms over too many households in the cold, dark months.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
In a speech on the same topic early in 2017, I said:
“We are in a cold homes crisis”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 822.]
Regrettably, that message remains. A large number of people in our society are living in fuel poverty, unable to live in a warm, dry home, tragically often resulting in excess winter deaths. Living in fuel poverty is miserable, for both the young and old. It increases anxieties and stresses and puts pressure on the already stretched NHS. According to the NHS, the current scale of the problems in England alone costs the health service approximately £3.6 million a day and results in 50,000 unnecessary deaths. The Government have a duty to ensure that everybody in the UK is living in a warm, dry home, and I am grateful for this opportunity to hold them to account on the progress—or lack of it—on tackling fuel poverty.
A year since the last debate, little progress has been made and the Government continue to miss the targets that they set. How did we get to the tragic point where, weeks before Christmas, millions of people will be vulnerable to having a cold, damp home? Under the Tories, we have seen a low-wage, low-productivity economy, with precarious working hours for millions of people, leaving them vulnerable. Coupled with that, we have seen a disastrous universal credit roll-out, forcing millions into food banks. Shamelessly, Tory Ministers have used opening a food bank as a photo opportunity recently, as though the increase in food banks were to be commended.
In my constituency, 41% of children are living in poverty, and the number of food bank parcels given out has increased exponentially. While many cannot rely on a decent pay packet, they are none the less met with increasing living costs. Under a Labour Government in 2007, we saw 2.5 million energy efficiency measures implemented in a single year. That number has fallen off a cliff. This Tory Government are failing those in fuel poverty, and they are failing the people of Britain.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I agree wholeheartedly with the points made about our not having long enough to debate this issue. There were some very interesting suggestions from Members right across the House, including about the personal commitment from the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and a very interesting point made by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) about targeting winter fuel payments, which have historically been a universal benefit.
However, someone listening to this debate would think that there had been no progress whatsoever. If I may, let me push back against what I think was a creative, yet factually incorrect, attempt by the Opposition to conflate all sorts of things. In the last full year of the Labour Government, the proportion of households in fuel poverty in this country was 11.9%. That is now 7% lower, and the median fuel poverty gap has dropped by 16% over that time—[Interruption.] Those are the facts. The facts are that we know we have more to do—[Interruption.] Yes, of course it has been re-based, but let us just focus on what has been delivered in policy terms.
We have halved the number of fuel-poor households living in F and G-rated properties since 2010. I have taken personal responsibility for reforming the energy company obligation, which was only 30% focused on fuel poverty just a few years ago and is now 100% focused on fuel poverty. That means £6 billion of spending over the next decade. It is being focused on rural poverty and is more focused on those who actually need it. We have included disability benefits and allowed for more innovation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) said, solid wall insulation is not the way to improve fuel efficiency in many homes. With cross-party support, we introduced the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 to save millions of people money on their energy bills. Of course there is more to do, but I hope that one day we can reach a cross-party consensus on something as important as solving fuel poverty, on which no Government, including the last Labour Government, have a good track record.
Business without Debate
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Green Deal scheme
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents about the green deal scheme. Several of my constituents have lost out through the mis-selling of solar panels by Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Ltd. The green deal is a Government-backed scheme, obviously, which gave it an air of authenticity that has allowed people to basically be ripped off, left paying off long-term loans that last longer than the life span of the product and paying higher bills than had they never participated in the first place.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of residents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the Government backed Green Deal Scheme has affected petitioners as we have suffered a detriment both to our finances, our private and family lives; further that many vulnerable residents have invested their life savings in good faith, and others have accrued up to £17,000 in debt to pay for the work that was carried out; and further that in many cases the installer did not apply for building warrants and as a result we are unable to sell our properties or have the assurance that they are safe to live in, or can be insured.
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to ensure that the Government will compensate and protect people who have found themselves suffering a detriment because of the Government backed scheme, and take steps to ensure that this cannot happen in the future.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002304]
Private Parking: Ports and Trading Estates
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I sought this evening’s debate to raise awareness of the unethical practice of commercial car parking firms issuing unreasonable parking and trespass enforcement notices against haulage companies in my constituency and elsewhere. I also wish to seek assistance from the Government to ensure that a proper framework is in place to properly address the unacceptable behaviour of commercial car parking enforcement companies, which are damaging the British haulage industry and threatening its profitability and jobs in Suffolk and, increasingly, elsewhere in the UK.
This issue first came to my attention when Magnus Group, a haulier based in Great Blakenham in my constituency, invited me to visit and asked for my support. Magnus Group is supported by in excess of 30 other UK road hauliers that collectively have the backing of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association. I am grateful to Magnus Group and Bartrums, another haulage company in my constituency, based in Eye, as well as Anchor Storage Solutions in Kenton and the Road Haulage Association for helping me to prepare for this debate.
I will begin with a little background for the Minister. The examples I will raise are particularly pertinent to Suffolk, and although I am raising concerns on behalf of road hauliers, my constituency being landlocked, I will give examples from the UK’s container port in Felixstowe. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) shares my concerns, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).
Felixstowe port receives in excess of 45%—close to 50%—of the UK’s container traffic, so the issues I am raising affect haulage companies not just in Suffolk but throughout the UK. Given the importance that the Government are placing on supporting UK trade as we go through the Brexit process, unethical practices that are affecting the UK haulage industry and its competitiveness must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Trinity Distribution Park in Felixstowe is owned and operated by Trinity College Cambridge and managed by Bidwells, an estate management company, which in turn employs the services of a commercial parking enforcement company called Proserve. Trinity owns much of the land around the port of Felixstowe. To date, it has failed to engage with the concerns of the road haulage industry. It is concerning that it appears to be allowing its agent, Bidwells, to employ an unregulated enforcement company which is using unreasonable practices to manage traffic on and around its property. Roads under the jurisdiction of Proserve at Trinity Distribution Park include Dooley Road, off the A154 at Walton Avenue, the BP garage on the A154 at Trinity Avenue, Blofield Road, Parker Avenue and Fagbury Road.
While the hauliers recognise the need for reasonable enforcement, they object to the unreasonable actions of Proserve, backed by Bidwells. Enforcement, when required, must be conducted in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner. Proserve’s actions include levying unreasonable charges and fines on hauliers—£180, rising to £250 if not paid within 14 days; failing to sign up to a regulated appeals procedure to monitor the appropriateness of the fines and trespass notices that it hands out; applying additional charges if and when fines and trespass notices are challenged—£37.50 per challenge; rejecting, without due process or consideration, many of the challenges to the fines and trespass notices that it hands out to hauliers; blocking in lorries and other vehicles owned by road hauliers, and using the process to issue trespass notices for each hour during which the vehicles are blocked in; and issuing trespass notices for vehicles that have stopped for only one minute, for example when conducting a parking manoeuvre such as a three-point turn.
There are a number of concerns about the legitimacy of the trespass notices themselves. For instance, Proserve has no access to the DVLA database, and notices are therefore issued to businesses on the basis of the livery of the vehicles concerned. Incorrect or no registration numbers are supplied to the hauliers on the notices. Notices and fines are sent to the wrong addresses, thus delaying their receipt by the intended recipients, who incur additional penalty charges as a consequence. There are substantial gaps between the dates recorded on notices and the dates on which they are received by haulage companies, and those delays also lead to additional penalty charges. Proserve claims on its notices that it uses the DVLA to help it to enforce trespass notices. The DVLA categorically denies that, and has advised the haulage companies affected to take the matter up directly with Suffolk Trading Standards.
There are also disturbing stories from a number of haulage companies which tell me that Proserve has told them that it will “go easy on them” if they pay it an annual fee. In effect, Proserve is asking hauliers to bribe it to stop handing out unethical fines. Companies that do not pay the fee find themselves receiving more attention from Proserve, which then increases the number of fines and trespass notices. Proserve seems to be operating what is, in effect, a mafia-style protection racket which penalises hauliers who refuse to comply. Bidwells, the managing agent, appears to stand by Proserve’s enforcement notices and practices, and Trinity College does not even want to know what is happening. It has refused to engage with hauliers who have raised concerns with it.
As I am sure the Minister will know, this practice is extremely damaging to road hauliers and their businesses when they attempt to deliver to and collect from businesses trading from Trinity Distribution Park. Many have either ceased to trade with businesses located there, or are becoming reluctant to do so because of the risk of trespass notices and fines. Felixstowe is the UK’s biggest container port, but the unethical behaviour of a parking enforcement agency is now preventing businesses from operating correctly in the port, and hauliers are finding it difficult to carry out day-to-day operations. The high risk of trespass notices means that the hauliers face having to increase their costs to their customers, pricing them out of the market and preventing them from competing fairly. The knock-on effect to business is that companies’ operations are becoming less efficient and less profitable, and there is an increased threat to local and national haulage and storage jobs.
I have also been provided with legal advice from a company in my constituency, Hemisphere Freight Ltd, which has been affected by the actions of Proserve. The advice is as follows:
“The landowner could be in breach of lease if it has authorised or permitted Proserve to cause obstruction and harassment on the estate roads.
The sub-lease provided does not support the assertion made by Proserve that there is a clause in all the leases to stop vehicles standing or permitting others to stand on any of the private estate roads. In the sub-lease provided, there is not an express clause that prohibits vehicles from queuing.
There is no contractual agreement between vehicle operators and the landowner.
The vehicle operators access the estate roads as licensees of the leaseholders of the premises visited. It is not clear that queuing on the estate roads is a trespass. The fines levied for alleged trespass are not enforceable.”
Because there is no clear legal framework or requirement for Proserve to be part of a trade body, its actions might be illegal but it can still operate in the unethical way it chooses to, and it continues to punish road haulier companies with impunity.
It is also worth reflecting on the direct experience of three companies that are being badly affected by the actions of Proserve and the inertia of both Bidwells and Trinity College Cambridge in tackling its unethical behaviour.
Magnus Group is based in Great Blakenham near Ipswich. Kevin Parker, managing director of the Magnus Group, tells me that it was formed in 1973, has gradually grown and now employs over 140 staff, but he is concerned that the damage being done to the company by the actions of Proserve might pose a serious threat to jobs in the future. Over the past six years, Magnus Group has paid in excess of £7,000 in fines issued by Proserve for both Ransomes industrial park in Ipswich and Trinity Distribution Park in Felixstowe. However, Proserve’s actions have escalated in recent weeks and months in Felixstowe.
Magnus Group has now opted to stop paying these fines after receiving a trespass notice with an unknown registration number on it. When it queried this with Bidwells, the land agent, Magnus was told it was not to be questioned and that the fine was based on the vehicle’s livery. Magnus Group has also received a fine for a vehicle that has never been registered to the company. The advice from Bidwells was that the fine was to be paid as it carried the livery of one of Magnus Group’s customers, Specialized bikes. One such trespass notice, or letter, from Proserve advised that Magnus Group’s licence to enter Trinity Distribution Park has been withdrawn by Trinity College’s agent, Bidwells. Magnus Group has never seen or received any notification of such a notice, nor the need to have a special licence. It has requested on a number of occasions to have sight of the licence, but neither Proserve nor Bidwells have complied with the request, which has thus far been ignored. Proserve’s trespass notice states that Magnus Group has 10 days from service of the notice to pay the full amount. If it does not, legal proceedings will commence in the county court. Magnus Group currently has 18 different letters for different vehicles entering the land in Felixstowe since 19 September, each notice containing a charge of £250 per incident.
The photographic evidence is not clear as to where the vehicles have been photographed. Indeed, many of them appear to be simply vehicles travelling on a tarmac road. Magnus Group has, at present, a number of fines totalling almost £6,000. Some of its vehicle fines have accrued further charges—some total £337.50 per fine and one is for £421.50. Magnus Group vehicles have been forcibly blocked by Proserve; while blocked, Proserve has taken photographs of the vehicle and used the photographs to subsequently issue fines. I am sure the Minister agrees that that is far from ethical practice and is certainly not desirable in the UK’s leading container port.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend’s speech. I know these roads and estates as I used to be a surveyor practising in that area, and the roads are not in the best order. Does my hon. Friend agree that this sort of practice, and the poor estate management in not keeping these roads up to standard, is undermining Felixstowe’s position as a premier container port in the UK?
Dr Poulter
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I shall give the House one more example on exactly that point. The issue for the Government to consider is that the actions of Proserve and companies like it are not isolated to Felixstowe. This is occurring throughout the United Kingdom. Specifically in Felixstowe, however, we know that jobs are reliant not only on the port and that many other jobs in Suffolk are linked through the haulage industry. As we look towards Brexit, the position of Felixstowe as the UK’s premier container port and the importance of Britain’s trade and its exporting and importing capacity is something that the Government should take into account. The behaviour of Proserve is undermining the competitiveness of Felixstowe, and it is potentially putting jobs at risk in Suffolk and elsewhere in the UK that are linked to the port. This is something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He is right to say that these things are happening not only in Felixstowe; they are happening elsewhere as well, and clearly no one is safe. Does he agree that excessive private parking enforcement carried out with no sensitivity can cause great distress in what can already be distressing circumstances? One of my constituents was hounded by a private parking company for a fine that was incurred when she was parked at a commercial harbour in Northern Ireland. She had had a heart attack and was taken away by ambulance, so she could not move her car. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that example and others like it show why people and companies get annoyed and angry? These private parking enforcement companies should not be a law unto themselves. They need to be brought under the control of legislation and the rule of law.
Dr Poulter
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We know from the behaviour of Proserve and from the example that he has just raised that these companies are often operating without any legal framework, and that there is no proper appeals process available to the victims of those companies. I have been talking about the commercial environment, but I believe that he was talking more from a private citizen’s perspective. However, the examples are certainly comparable. This is borne out even further by my next example.
Bartrums is a large haulage company in Eye, in the north of Suffolk. Andrew Watton, its chief executive officer, has told me:
“For a number of years, Bartrums haulage have been dogged by over-zealous parking enforcement to the point of almost extortion”—
by Proserve in Felixstowe.
“This enforcement company is not part of any parking enforcement association and therefore has no appeals process to the fines for which they impose. The fines and charges are excessive and when you complain or challenge the penalty via Bidwell’s”—
the managing agents—
“you are then charged an additional management fee. Hauliers who fail to make payment of the fine imposed are then banned from site (an area which makes up a substantial proportion of Felixstowe Port). The fines are imposed for stopping anywhere on the carriageway across the controlled area. The fines are in the region of £250…This is under the offence of trespass. Many hauliers across the UK are victim to this sharp practice and growing in number. We have now got to the point of taking group action against Trinity College directly, as previous legal actions against Proserve have failed. This is a restrictive practice, and some select local hauliers in the local area are exempt from these fines, which is anti-competitive.”
As I mentioned earlier, companies may be exempted from these fines because they pay Proserve a fee in order to be given better treatment. That does not sound like a fair or ethical way of running a parking enforcement company in a port the size of Felixstowe. It sounds like extortion, because if the hauliers do not pay, they get fined. I hope that the Minister will be able to look into this.
Andrew Watton continued:
“Trinity are obliged to look at mitigating these charges, which they have failed to do.”
Trinity College’s failure to engage with the process throughout has been woeful.
I want to give one last example. FTS Hatswell Ltd tells me:
“Proserve is a company who work on behalf of the landowners at Trinity Distribution Park…They are issuing trespass notices and heavy fines even if you stop to ask for directions. Last week I got a call from another Haulier whose driver stopped as he had hit something lying in the road”.
Yet he still got a fine and a trespass notice. The company continued:
“FTS Hatswell Limited are currently banned from both sites”
that Proserve runs,
“and even the BP garage by the estate. They are not able to obtain owner details from the DVLA as they don’t belong to a parking enforcement body.”
The challenge for the Minister is to meet the three tests that I have set out. Clearly, a parking enforcement company is behaving unethically and affecting hauliers all over the UK. It affects the productivity and functioning of Felixstowe port, which is the biggest container port in the country. I know that the Government will want to address that, given the looming decisions on Brexit and the importance of overseas trade.
Setting aside the inertia and disappointing behaviour of Trinity College and its agents, Bidwells, there are many concerns that need to be addressed. First, the Government need to ensure that all commercial car parking companies are properly regulated and signed up to a trade body and an appeals regulator, who can consider their actions fairly and ensure fairness and transparency in the appeals process. Secondly, we need to ensure that Suffolk Trading Standards is supported to take appropriate action against Proserve, and Bidwells and Trinity College. Thirdly, we should investigate setting up a proper regulatory system for commercial parking enforcement to support the haulage industry and prevent the unethical and anti-competitive behaviour of companies such as Proserve.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and thank her for taking the time to listen to the points I have raised on behalf of the haulage industry in Suffolk and elsewhere.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on securing this debate on private parking enforcement at commercial ports and trading estates. I am pleased to respond to a debate on a subject that is clearly important to my hon. Friend, his constituents and hauliers. Although there are no major commercial ports in North Ipswich and Central Suffolk, his constituency is close to that great hub of maritime activity and excellence on the Harwich Haven waterway.
That includes one of the country’s largest and most important ports at Felixstowe, as well as other significant commercial ports at Harwich International and the port of Ipswich. Together, those ports deal with some 11% of total freight tonnage handled by English ports— 36 million tonnes in 2017. They have a significant impact on the local economy as a source of employment and business activity. I am sure that I do not have to convince my hon. Friend and other Members of the economic importance of our ports to our country. They make a massive contribution to our economy and, to put it simply, are the reason why we can thrive as a trading nation. Our ports are our main gateway to the world, handling 95% of all imports and exports, employing 24,000 people and boosting our economy by £5.4 billion a year.
As Minister for maritime, I see the story behind those statistics every day and the enterprise, investment, and commitment to customers that make Britain’s ports among the best in the world. I also had the opportunity in May to visit a number of our ports, including Felixstowe, and saw first hand the fundamental role they play.
The scale of the operations at Felixstowe is impressive. The port handles the largest container vessels in the world, some 400 metres long each and holding some 18,000 twenty-foot equivalent unit—or TEU—containers, with 33 cranes to load and unload them. Felixstowe handles some 4 million TEU containers each year. Our other large container ports, including at London Gateway and Southampton, are just as impressive.
Our ports operate on a commercial basis in a competitive environment, including with ports on the continent. They have an impressive record of investment in new facilities, investing hundreds of millions of pounds in new facilities over the past 10 years, with further planned for the future. As my hon. Friend mentioned, their importance will grow as we leave the EU and start to make the most of the new global trading opportunities it brings.
As a consequence of their success, our major commercial ports generate significant volumes of road traffic moving freight to and from ports, with goods for export travelling to our ports and imported goods being taken to their destinations inland, such as warehouses, distribution centres and factories. Our ports are a key link in the supply chains of our economy. That is particularly the case at ports specialising in shipping containers, such as Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton, as well as larger roll-on roll-off ferry ports including Dover and Harwich International.
In most cases, the aim is for a vehicle to spend as little time as possible at the port, often arriving at a set time to pick up or deposit a container before departing shortly afterwards, or arriving at a port to catch a ferry service with as little time as possible spent at the port. The provision of parking for vehicles is not therefore that relevant to such ports. The priority is to ensure that traffic is kept moving smoothly through the port. However, some ports will provide more parking facilities, such as for use by departing cruise passengers. For other mainly smaller ports, car parking for tourists and other visitors can provide an important source of revenue, particularly over the summer season.
Each port is responsible for managing its own car parking arrangements. Some ports may use their statutory powers under harbour byelaws to do that, particularly where parking control is needed to ensure the safe and effective operation of the harbour. Others may use an approach involving private parking contractors.
Whatever the arrangements, they seem to work effectively. My Department receives very little correspondence from members of the public or businesses with concerns about parking arrangements at our ports, although that is not in any way to discount the concerns of my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Dr Poulter
I understand that the Minister is reading from a pre-prepared speech, but will she acknowledge that I represent the views of more than 30 haulage companies that have a problem with how commercial parking enforcement is being run at Felixstowe port by Proserve? It is damaging their competitiveness and it is potentially costing jobs. Proserve’s unethical behaviour needs to be addressed.
Ms Ghani
I was just about to come on to that. It is important that we understand any potential damage to our haulage industry, which is key to getting freight in and out of our country and to ensuring our ports thrive now and in the future.
If any individual or business has concerns about parking arrangements at ports, those concerns are always best addressed directly to the ports themselves—I understand that my hon. Friend is frustrated by the lack of interaction from the port and the operating company—and it is for the contractor to consider and quickly resolve those concerns.
My hon. Friend’s constituents have raised concerns about the way in which one particular private parking enforcement company has been operating at a distribution facility at Felixstowe. I understand that the facility is not part of the port itself but is close to it. He has written to the site’s owners raising his constituents’ concerns, to which I hope and expect he will get a satisfactory response. Although I would not wish to comment on the specifics of that particular case, improving the way the private parking sector works is an important issue for the Government.
The private parking industry is currently self-regulating. However, like my hon. Friend, we have concerns about the practices of some private parking companies. That is why the Government are pleased to support the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, a private Member’s Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight). The Bill passed its remaining stages in the House of Commons on 23 November, and it was introduced in the other place on 26 November.
The Bill seeks to create a single code of practice that is applicable to every private parking operator, rather than the current position in which each parking association has a different code of practice and different standards to which it holds its members. By providing a single code of practice, the Bill aims to create clarity and consistency across the industry for both parking operators and motorists. It also aims to raise standards by incorporating best practice as standard across the industry.
I welcome the amendment made on Report, which will allow a single appeals body to be appointed. That is key to some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend, and it will create a straightforward process for motorists who have received a private parking ticket to follow to appeal.
My hon. Friend raised a number of concerns—one was about penalties. I will be taking that back to my Department so that the roads Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), ensures that my hon. Friend gets a robust response. Once again, my hon. Friend highlighted the importance of the logistics industry, and we cannot have it feeling that it is being particularly targeted because of the way it conducts business.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has joined us in the Chamber. She is already across these issues, and I will make sure that my Department is working closely with hers to ensure that both hauliers and local constituency Members of Parliament are represented appropriately. I hope that my response has assured my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich that the Government are well aware of the issue of parking at commercial ports and trading estates, both in my Department and in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is also involved in enforcement. I will make sure that the record of today’s debate is passed to the appropriate Minister so that they can respond to my hon. Friend, too. We must not forget that the parking code of practice, when it becomes law, should help to address a number of the concerns the Government have about how the current systems works. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue this evening, but I am sure that his constituents will welcome the proposed Bill. I will ensure that the appropriate Ministers respond further on the issues relating to penalties that he raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Takeovers (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Takeovers (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. The regulations will be made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They amend part 28 of the Companies Act 2006, so that the United Kingdom’s corporate takeovers regime can operate independently in the event that the UK exits from the EU without a withdrawal agreement.
If the UK leaves the EU without an agreement in place, the instrument will provide legal clarity and certainty. The takeovers regime seeks to ensure that shareholders receive fair and equal treatment when the company in which they have invested is subject to a takeover bid. The effective operation of the takeovers regime is vital to business confidence.
Part 28 of the 2006 Act transposes the takeover directive 2004/25/EC into UK law. The directive was intended to harmonise certain aspects of takeover supervision across the European economic area. It created expectations of reasonable behaviour to which company shareholders could hold bidders. It also created a system of co-operation, in which member states’ regulators shared jurisdiction over a small number of cross-border takeover cases.
The 2006 Act requires the Takeover Panel to make rules to give effect to the directive in the UK. The panel has done so in the City code on takeovers and mergers. The regulations preserve the statutory underpinning of the code, and make only minimal changes to the way in which the UK regime functions. In developing the regulations, we worked closely with the UK’s supervisory authority, the Takeover Panel. The panel has published a consultation document on the changes that it will need to make the takeover code reflect the regulations.
The regulations make only three substantive changes to the way in which the UK takeovers regime functions. The rest of the regulations import and correct provisions from the directive that are necessary for the independent operation of the UK regime, but do not change how the domestic regime operates.
First, the EEA takeovers regime includes a system of shared jurisdiction for company headquarters that are listed in different countries. The supervision of a company captured by the shared jurisdiction system is usually done by two regulatory authorities: one in the country where the company has its registered office, and the other in the country where the company is listed. The shared jurisdiction regime ensures that there is clarity about which national takeover rules apply in such cases.
The shared jurisdiction regime works on a reciprocal basis. Since the UK will be outside that framework, the reciprocal arrangements will no longer apply after EU exit. The regulation will remove shared jurisdiction from the UK takeovers regime. The Act requires the panel to supervise UK companies with securities admitted to trading on a UK-regulated market. The panel may also choose to supervise companies that do not fall within that definition. The panel is currently consulting on the application of the takeover code in the light of the loss of the shared jurisdiction regime.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify what would happen if a takeover started before exit day, but had not been completed, and there was a co-operation arrangement, with two jurisdictions reviewing the proposed takeover? Presumably, after exit day, only one would be allowed to review it. Would a whole new process have to be started, or would one authority effectively just give up its scrutiny of the takeover?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he raises a very good point. Although the statutory instrument will remove the shared jurisdiction, part 28 of the 2006 Act still places a duty on the UK to co-operate with any country or territory on mergers. While the SI will remove the reference to the EEA, we will not remove the continued co-operation of the UK regime with other countries and territories.
The panel is currently consulting on the application of the takeover code in the light of the loss of the shared jurisdiction regime. It proposes to supervise takeovers concerning only companies that meet the residency criteria set out in the takeover code.
The second feature of the draft regulations relates to the duty to co-operate. Section 950 of the Companies Act places a general duty on the Takeover Panel to co-operate with its counterparts and certain other regulatory agencies in any country or territory outside the UK. It also imposes a specific duty to co-operate with supervisory authorities in the EEA, which is derived from the takeovers directive 2004. After our exit, EEA member states will no longer be bound to co-operate with the UK under the directive. The draft regulations will therefore remove the specific obligation to co-operate with EEA supervisory authorities, as it will no longer be reciprocal. However, the Takeover Panel will still be required to co-operate with the authorities of EEA member states under the broader duty to co-operate with any international supervisory authority with an equivalent role. This change will not, in practice, constrain the panel’s ability to co-operate.
The final feature of the draft regulation relates to restrictions on the disclosure of confidential information. Section 948 of the Companies Act restricts the disclosure of confidential information obtained by the Takeover Panel during its duties and sets the conditions under which information can be shared. It applies to both the panel and the organisations with which information is shared. Breaching the section 948 restriction is a criminal offence.
The Companies Act provides an exemption from the section 948 restriction for EEA public bodies using confidential information disclosed by the panel for the purpose of pursuing an EU obligation. These EEA public bodies are bound by their own national laws and by EU law to prevent the inappropriate disclosure of information passed to them by UK authorities. After our EU exit, these reciprocal protections will no longer apply to the UK. The draft regulation will remove the specific exemption from the section 948 offence for EEA public bodies and ensure that there is a sanction to deter inappropriate onward disclosure of sensitive information.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Just for clarity, once we leave the EU, will whatever duties there are on the UK to co-operate in a takeover situation be reciprocated by the EU, so that there is an element of co-operation on matters of this sort? In other words, will there be reciprocity across the divide?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My understanding is that we are obviously bringing the EU regime as it stands into UK law, including the duty to co-operate with countries, and I expect that that will be the case.
Mr Baron
I thank the Minister; she is being very generous. I get that we will be taking EU law into UK law. We will co-operate, because we will have taken that legislation into our own, but I want clarity on whether the Minister is confident that there will be reciprocity when it comes to the EU co-operating with us? As the Minister well knows, takeovers can go both ways.
Kelly Tolhurst
It is my understanding that that will be the case. If I am incorrect, I will of course correct the record. As I have outlined, we currently have an obligation to co-operate, which is in the interests of those countries. However, we are talking about a small number of organisations that would fall under this requirement.
The regulations before the Committee are the product of close working with the Takeover Panel to provide a free-standing statutory underpinning for the UK takeover regime in the event of a no-deal exit. Corporate mergers and takeovers are an important part of a healthy economy. By encouraging efficiency gains, spreading knowledge and promoting innovation, they drive economic growth and job creation.
It is vital that we seek to safeguard the legal framework that gives companies and their shareholders the confidence to engage in merger and acquisition activity. The regulations achieve that goal by making only the changes needed to fix deficiencies in UK law arising from EU exit. They do not otherwise alter the operation of the UK’s takeover regime. They will have a negligible overall net effect on our economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister’s remarks show that the prospect of no deal should be avoided at all costs for this reason alone; there are many other reasons for avoiding it, but let us explore the risks in the regulations.
The Minister talked about legal clarity and certainty, and referred to part 28 of the Companies Act 2006. However, the regulations move from a specific provision, covered by our relationships as part of the European Union, and of the EEA in particular, to general obligations in terms of international co-operation, the implication of which is that we move to a weaker takeover regulatory system.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley talked about what happens in the event of a takeover that straddles exit day and about how we guarantee continued co-operation before and after exit day from our EEA counterparts. The problem is that the duty to co-operate will no longer apply, as the Minister said.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay asked an even more pertinent question on reciprocal arrangements, and I want to quote part of a letter the Minister wrote to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey):
“At EU exit, however, EEA Member States will no longer be bound by a duty under EU law to cooperate with the UK. To leave section 950 of the Companies Act intact would therefore be to impose a duty on the Panel that is not reciprocated by supervisory authorities elsewhere in the EEA.”
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay hit the nail on the head: we cannot guarantee that the supervisory arrangements will be in place from the EEA once we have left. That is a really important point that the Minister will need to address.
As with so many other areas of business dealings and the regulatory environment, there is a real problem. The UK domestic takeover regime will need to function outside the existing EU framework. My understanding is that it is fully integrated at the moment because of our EU membership, but that will no longer be the case. Perhaps the Minister can confirm exactly how it will operate, because her two hon. Friends have highlighted a very real problem regarding the current complexity. That complexity is pretty clear from paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum. That paragraph describes the consequential amendments required and demonstrates how many changes are needed to existing legislation in this country to disentangle us from the EU arrangements that we are party to at the moment. Perhaps the Minister can address that point and the apparent confusion between her remarks and what she said in the letter I quoted.
In addition, will the Minister talk about what will happen with takeovers that are across multiple jurisdictions? Can she tell us what preparations the Competition and Markets Authority has made? What will the experience of the existing and additional staff be? What qualifications will current and new staff have? How long does it take for staff to acquire the skills needed to supervise such arrangements adequately?
Coming back to the points made by the Minister’s hon. Friends, who will regulate in cases where companies have a registered office in an EEA member state and trade their securities on the UK stock exchange? That is the point about multiple jurisdictions. The fact that a company is registered in an EEA state does not mean that we are not interested; if it is trading on our stock market, we have an enormous interest in ensuring that we supervise adequately.
I am afraid we are becoming rather used to an absence of impact assessments for the SIs we are discussing relating to no deal, which are coming thick and fast—one last week, and two this week that the Minister and I are dealing with. The explanatory memorandum states that
“the impact on most businesses will be minimal”,
so an impact assessment was not produced. However, it also says that 10 UK companies are affected by the regulations. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee how big those companies are and how significant they are for the UK economy. If they are sizeable companies, that is not an insignificant issue—and, let us face it, if they are involved in takeover activity, they are likely to be sizeable companies. That raises the question of why the Government have decided not to produce an impact assessment.
I mentioned the consequential amendments. Paragraph 7.14 of the explanatory memorandum speaks of a duty of co-operation. EEA member state bodies will have no duty, and we will have no duty, so will the Minister explain how that will work, and address the points that have been raised?
It seemed from the Minister’s initial remarks—I think there were some gaps in her analysis in response to her hon. Friends—that the Government cannot guarantee at this stage how the takeover regime will operate in the event of no deal. I suggest that she needs to answer that today, if she can. If she cannot, she should write to all members of the Committee with more detail about how the regime will operate in the event of no deal regarding the multi-jurisdictional challenge.
The regulations show again how important it is that the Government do everything in their power to avoid the prospect of no deal. The way forward is to get a plan that Parliament and the EU can support so that we do not end up in that situation in the first place.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. I welcome the statutory instrument, and commend the Government and the Minister for presenting it very well. It is one of the instruments that is beginning to deal with a no-deal scenario, as well as a deal-based scenario. Although many of us wish the Prime Minister well in negotiating the withdrawal agreement and subsequent free trade agreement, it would be the responsibility of any Government to prepare for the eventuality of no deal. The statutory instrument performs both functions, ensuring that our company takeover regime works in both scenarios.
I have a couple of questions. One is that there is a possibility—and I hope it does not arise because of the Brexit vote—that we may remain in the European Union. Would this statutory instrument then need to be reversed if that were the situation? The second question is slightly more technical, and I do not want to push the Minister too hard on this. I am interested in companies with dual listings, both in the EEA or the European Union and in the UK. How does this statutory instrument deal with that situation? I appreciate that she may need some inspiration to answer that question.
The explanatory memorandum says that the regulations transpose the 2004 directive, through the 2006 Act, into our legislation. However, it also says that these regulations will
“fix deficiencies in the Act arising from EU exit and thus preserve, so far as possible, the current takeover regime.”
I was wondering why it says “so far as possible”. Is it because, despite the great drafting of this statutory instrument, there may well be areas that are not fully covered and that may need to be addressed again in future?
Overall, I will be supporting this statutory instrument. It is absolutely vital that not only this one but probably another 20,000 more come through these Committees and that our job, as Members of Parliament, is very much enhanced when we leave the EU, because we will be doing what we were elected to do in the first place, which is effecting UK law.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and particularly the hon. Member for Sefton Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. This debate has highlighted that the absolute best outcome for us in exiting the European Union should be that we have a deal. We are now talking about a statutory instrument that relates to us leaving the European Union without a deal, so this is a no-deal SI.
These regulations will provide some legal clarity in respect of the takeover regime after the UK’s exit from the EU by correcting deficiencies and removing obligations that will no longer be reciprocated by EEA member states. The regulations do not represent a policy change in the operation of the UK takeovers regime; rather, they preserve as far as possible the rights, responsibilities and protections offered by the existing system.
I will now try to answer Members’ comments and questions, and if I miss some, they should feel free to intervene on me. Hon. Members have raised the question of what happens on exit day in terms of a situation of straddling jurisdiction and continued co-operation. As I outlined in my speech, we already have a duty to co-operate with countries that are not in the EEA, but that does not preclude us from co-operating with the EEA. It does not stop the EEA from co-operating with us bilaterally, in the way it would co-operate with any country that was not part of the EEA.
In regard to the number of companies, from my current figures, 25 companies have a registered office in the EEA and have traded securities in the UK. Eleven companies currently have a registered office in the UK and have traded securities in regulated markets in EEA countries. We are talking about a small number of organisations. Another statistic that may interest the Committee is that in 2017-18 there were 57 bids, and in the UK the panel dealt with 13 takeover cases relating to £1 billion. That demonstrates the importance of having the regulations in place. I believe I have answered hon. Members’ questions about the duty to co-operate, but they are welcome to question me further if not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked what would happen to the draft regulations if we remained in the EU or reached a deal. In such an instance, the Government would lay a further statutory instrument before the House to take into account any deal that had been made that changed the position currently on the table.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central asked about the consequential amendments set out in paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum. As he will know from previous debates, we need to amend UK instruments to correct any deficiencies. I did not mention this in my speech, but the draft regulations make changes that relate to section 949 of the 2006 Act and criminal offences, and the references to the EEA have obviously been changed in this instrument. So a number of smaller elements have had to be changed through the law.
I think I have answered most of the questions that hon. Members have asked. The Government are committed to ensuring continued business confidence in takeover supervision. The draft regulations make only those changes that are required to effect the UK’s exit from the EU. The UK regime should therefore continue largely unchanged, and the net overall effect on the economy will be negligible.
I have just remembered a question that I have not yet answered about impact assessments, which the hon. Member for Sefton Central is particularly concerned about. An impact assessment was not carried out in this instance because the costs that companies are expected to incur as a result of this change are negligible. It affects only a limited number of companies, and the costs would relate directly to the compliance regimes within the other organisations, where they will have to get the supervisory authority. We assess that the financial obligation on businesses will be relatively small, so in this case an impact assessment was not carried out. I therefore urge the Committee to approve the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Ecumenical Relations Measure
Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
Church Property Measure
Church of England Pensions Measure
(5 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Ecumenical Relations Measure (HC 1687).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure (HC 1688), Church Property Measure (HC 1689) and Church of England Pensions Measure (HC 1690).
Dame Caroline Spelman
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. To some colleagues, this may be an unusual format for the Committee. I would like to explain that the Measures that we are considering have been through the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is composed of Members from both Houses, is cross-party and is chaired by Lady Butler-Sloss. On 24 October, we went through all these Measures in considerable detail, and I have the report of that careful scrutiny, so I hope that today we may be able to deal with the Measures expeditiously.
I shall outline the Measures. The first is an ecumenical relations Measure. The main point of it is to enable the Church of England to participate in ecumenical activity with other Christian Churches. Colleagues may wonder why that does not already happen. In fact, it does happen. All this Measure does is to improve on the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure 1988. That enables the Church of England formally to participate in ecumenical activity with other Christian Churches, but there remain some Churches that are not covered by the 1988 legislation, so the new Measure will broaden the scope of that provision to include a wider range of Christian Churches, whose members will then be able to participate in Church of England services—for example, by reading lessons or leading prayers and, in the case of the Salvation Army, by preaching.
An important provision of the new Measure will enable the bishop of a diocese to designate Churches that have not so far been designated, so it extends the scope of the provision. The new Measure will allow formal ecumenical relationships to be established between the Church of England and Churches of this description at diocesan level.
The Measure requires the House of Bishops to issue a code of practice on co-operation by the Church of England with other Churches. Colleagues will know from their own constituencies that there are a number of Churches of different denominations. The Measure will enhance the ecumenical activity of which the Church of England is capable.
Secondly, we have a miscellaneous provisions Measure. It makes provision in respect of a range of matters concerning the Church of England that in themselves do not merit freestanding legislation. In particular, it includes in clause 1 a power for the Church Commissioners to make grants to the Archbishops’ Council. The commissioners have adopted a policy that they will follow on making grants under the power if the Measure is passed. This is very valuable to the Church of England, because the Church Commissioners have in essence decided on a policy of top-slicing some of their budget and directing it towards the need for growth. In our own constituencies, we may have a number of communities, new estates, where there are no churches; they were not provided for. The new strategic development fund is being directed towards growth of Churches on estates where currently there is no provision for the community.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I very much welcome and support the first part of my right hon. Friend’s statement, talking about ecumenical Churches working together. I think that that is hugely important, but does what she has just said cover the situation in which, for example, in a more rural community, there is already a church, but for historical reasons it happens to be outside the centre of the modern village or community? Would the provision cover that sort of scenario, or is it meant to be for far more modern estates, as she has just described?
Dame Caroline Spelman
It is for estates of a certain antiquity as well as new housing developments—often, they are built on the outskirts of a settled community and no worship centre is provided. In one very bold example, we saw the provision of £1 million to convert the old gasworks in Birmingham into a new student church. The dioceses bid into the strategic development fund. If my hon. Friend is interested, I can give him more details to take back to his own diocese. It essentially recognises that the Church needs to grow in areas where the community has developed and changed.
The Measure also makes provision relating to the conduct of funerals to provide greater availability of clergy, which is sadly a necessity with increasing life expectancy; clergy terms of service, so that relevant legislation is kept up to date and consistent with modern employment law; and the decisions of appeal courts to avoid conflicting decisions in consistory courts in the provinces of Canterbury and York.
The third Measure is the Church Property Measure. It essentially consolidates, with corrections and minor improvements, several enactments relating to dealings with parsonage housings; dealings with and the management of glebe land; and the acquisition of new land for Church purposes. It also consolidates several miscellaneous and general provisions relating to Church property. The principal enactments cover the Parsonages Measure 1938, the New Parishes Measure 1943, the Church Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1960 in part, and the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976 in part. The Measure also consolidates statutory provisions contained in a further 22 enactments. It is, in essence, a tidying up Measure.
The fourth Measure is the Church of England Pensions Measure, which consolidates, with corrections and minor improvements, a number of enactments concerned with pensions for the clergy, church workers and church administrators, and their surviving spouses, civil partners and dependents. Cutting straight to the quick, because this is what colleagues in the Ecclesiastical Committee wanted to know, it does not alter in any way the terms of service of clergy personnel, or other categories of employees, of the Church of England, or the pension rights of those already retired or working towards their retirement. That is the most important thing to reassure hon. Members about. It consolidates Measures including the Clergy Pensions Measure 1961, the Church of England Pensions Regulations 1988, the Pensions Measure 1997 and the Church of England (Pensions) Measure 2003. The Measure consolidates a total of 32 enactments. The full list is in the repeals schedule to the Measure.
Those are the four Measures that are being considered together. I am willing to take questions.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I will not detain us for long either. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her explanation of the points that took the Committees more time to look over, and I appreciate the reassurances. I thank hon. Members who served on the Committees to bring the Measures to this Committee. An awful lot of work was involved tidying them up and bringing them up to current practice. The Measures are technical and complex, so it is important for there to be a degree of transparency around them, because they are important to the lives of people working and worshipping in the Church.
With regard to the Church Property Measure, I have mentioned before that these are really important assets to local communities and it is important that local communities are involved when property is disposed of and when new buildings are coming forth. I know that the work of the right hon. Lady and other hon. Members is cognisant of that, but it affects all our constituencies and the people in them. Equally, with regard to the Church of England Pensions Measure, when people put themselves forward for public service, it is important that they have some assurance about what will happen for them and their families when they no longer continue to work.
I thank everyone for the work they have done to date. Nothing stands out to us as particularly controversial at this stage. We welcome bringing outdated legislation up to date and anything that might improve the situation. No doubt hon. Members will want to talk about that further on the Floor of the House when the Measures come to it—whenever that may be.
Dame Caroline Spelman
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol South for her comments. I reassure her and other hon. Members present that the Measures were debated in the General Synod of the Church of England before they even came before the Ecclesiastical Committee, so they had a good airing before they got to us. Those who are directly interested in their operation in respect of pensions and property have had ample opportunity to raise issues, but the Measures were passed unanimously by the Synod.
It may interest Committee members to know that the Church opens as many churches as it closes. As communities shift to different locations or move into towns and cities, the Church constantly seeks ways to provide new opportunities for people to worship where they live. All these Measures will help towards that end.
Question put and agreed to.
Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure (HC 1688).—(Dame Caroline Spelman.)
Church Property Measure
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Church Property Measure (HC 1689).—(Dame Caroline Spelman.)
Church of England Pensions Measure
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Church of England Pensions Measure (HC 1690).—(Dame Caroline Spelman.)
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 11th December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 December 2018 - (11 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question negatived.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 79, page 53, line 26, leave out from “tax” to end of line 28.
This amendment would delete paragraph (b) of section 36A(7), which is being inserted into the Taxes Management Act 1970.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 139, in clause 79, page 53, line 28, at end insert—
“(7A) But an assessment under subsection (2) may not be sought by the Commissioners unless they are satisfied that the liability to tax is in excess of £50.”
This amendment establishes a de minimis threshold for the extended time limits of £50.
Amendment 140, in clause 79, page 53, line 42, at end insert—
“36B Public register of persons affected by change made by section 36A(2)
It shall be the duty of the Commissioners to publish a register of persons liable to tax by virtue of the provisions of section 36A(2).”
This amendment requires HMRC to create a public register of those paying tax as a result of the extended time limit.
Amendment 106, in clause 79, page 54, line 1, leave out “2013-14” and insert “2019-20”.
This amendment would mean that new section 36A does not apply retrospectively.
Amendment 107, in clause 79, page 54, line 5, leave out “2015-16” and insert “2019-20”.
This amendment would mean that new section 36A does not apply retrospectively.
Amendment 141, in clause 79, page 54, line 6, at end insert—
“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the characteristics of persons affected by the changes made by this section to TMA 1970 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(7) A review under subsection (6) must in particular consider those persons in relation to their—
(a) age,
(b) income,
(c) legal status, and
(d) primary language.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review certain characteristics of those affected by the main provisions of Clause 79.
Amendment 142, in clause 79, page 54, line 6, at end insert—
“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, in respect of each tax year from 2013-14 onwards, review the revenue effects of the changes made by this section to TMA 1970 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the main provisions of Clause 79 in respect of each tax year.
Amendment 143, in clause 79, page 54, line 6, at end insert—
“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by this section to TMA 1970 on incentives on persons to comply with requirements imposed by the Commissioners, whether under TMA 1970 or otherwise, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of the main provisions of Clause 79 on incentives to comply with tax rules.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 144, in clause 80, page 55, line 19, at end insert—
“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the characteristics of persons affected by the changes made by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(7) A review under subsection (6) must in particular consider those persons in relation to their—
(a) age,
(b) income,
(c) legal status, and
(d) primary language.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review certain characteristics of those affected by the main provisions of Clause 80.
Amendment 145, in clause 80, page 55, line 19, at end insert—
“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the changes made by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review certain characteristics of those affected by the main provisions of Clause 80.
Clause 80 stand part.
Kirsty Blackman
Once again, it is a pleasure to be in the Finance Bill Committee, where everything is calm, smooth, predictable and a little different. However, I hope the Minister will go away from predictability and choose to agree to the Scottish National party’s amendments 105, 106 and 107.
We have tabled the amendments because of representations we received from the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s low incomes tax reform group. On amendment 105, the group believes there is nothing to prevent Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs from relying on proposed new section 36A(7)(b) to claim, for example, that owing to internal resource constraints, it was unable to make the assessment within the normal time limits, which is the argument used for the introduction of the measure in the first place. That could render the safeguard provided in subsection 7(a) ineffective.
If paragraph 7(b) is to be retained, the low incomes tax reform group recommends that “reasonable” be defined clearly, possibly by the Minister here, but preferably on Report. For example, we consider it reasonable for HMRC to make any assessment no later than within 30 days of receiving the relevant information, rather than, in effect, within a variable time period that potentially depends on the size and complexity of the dataset received. We ask for that provision to be deleted, as the group believes it is unnecessary.
Amendments 106 and 107 would ensure proposed new section 36A did not apply retrospectively. Again, the low incomes tax reform group fails to see how the Government can claim that these rules do not have a retrospective impact, since subsection (5) makes it clear that the changes apply to 2016-16 and subsequent years, or 2013-14 where the loss of tax is brought about carelessly. The original consultation stated in paragraph 4.13 that
“the new legislation will not apply retrospectively”,
so to effect the legislation as intended, subsection (5) should be amended such that the rules apply only from tax year 2019-20 onwards.
We want HMRC to consider carefully the language used in taxpayer communications, to minimise distress to the taxpayer in any communications about the changes. As a minimum, HMRC should provide taxpayers with guidance on any relief that may apply to offset any potential liability, and avoid at all costs language that is not appropriate for a taxpayer who conducts their affairs in good faith.
Amendment 107 is about the retrospective nature of the clause. The Government have talked throughout the Committee about having done what they feel is adequate consultation. We have challenged that many times, and so have the official Opposition. If the Government consult and then do something different from what they consulted on, they need to lay out why or, at the very least, justify why they are doing something different from what they consulted on. If they hold a consultation on something and ask experts to get in touch with the information they think would make the best possible legislation, the Government need to consult on what they intend to do, not make changes to that legislation as it comes through.
I hope the Minister looks carefully at the amendments we have put forward. If he gives reassurances that he will look at this before Report to ensure that the Bill applies as intended, and that it does not have clauses that muddy the waters and apply provisions retrospectively, I would be keen not to push the amendment to a vote. However, that would require the Government to make it clear that they will consider the matter before Report and consider tabling their own amendments so that the tax professionals, who best know how the legislation will be applied, will have comfort that it is workable and will achieve what the Government intended. I will not speak any longer, because I know that the Committee has to move on, but I would appreciate some comfort from the Minister on that issue.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms Dorries. I agree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. I will first speak to our amendments that push in a similar direction to the Scottish National party’s, before moving on to those that highlight other shortcomings of the clause.
To address the effect of the extended time limits on vulnerable taxpayers, our amendment 139 would introduce a de minimis threshold of £50 for the extended time limits, pushing in a similar direction to SNP amendments 105, 106, 107, 137 and 138. It follows the advice of the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s low incomes tax reform group, which raised concerns about the clause. Its written evidence states:
“LITRG remain deeply concerned about the impact of these changes on low income, unrepresented taxpayers.”
Our amendment seeks to restore a sense of balance to the new procedures set out in the clause. Given the serious restrictions on amending this legislation, which we have raised many times in this Committee, we are not able wholly to reform the process, but we think our amendment would improve the clause by making a moderate change that has been requested by groups that have lobbied Committee members. LITRG’s written evidence continues:
“In order to reduce the impact of the measure, the Government should introduce a de minimis threshold for the extended time limits to apply. For example, the approach taken by HMRC in assessing trivial amounts under the Worldwide Disclosure Facility (WDF), e.g. where the net amount due after applicable reliefs is no more than £50, may be suitable.”
Why might a de minimis threshold be necessary? LITRG points out that the changes
“only affect those who have acted non-deliberately and they erode the distinction…between those who take reasonable care and those who are careless.”
It further notes:
“Threatening letters from HMRC cause a great deal of unnecessary distress”—
particularly to vulnerable people who may not understand why they have been contacted. Surely it would be sensible to focus HMRC’s resources on dealing with large-scale tax evasion, rather than on people—especially older people—who may accidentally have failed to pay a very small amount of tax. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting amendment 139 in the spirit in which it was intended: as a genuine improvement that would protect vulnerable people.
Amendment 140 would introduce a public register of companies included under the changes. It relates to Labour’s wider policy, which we have pushed several times in this Committee, of having a public register of offshore trusts. It would be wonderful if the Government decided that they wanted to accept that policy now. Perhaps they will do so in this potentially final sitting. Who knows? We can always hope.
To further address the potential effect on vulnerable people, amendment 141 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the changes in relation to characteristics including age, income, primary language and legal status. That would help us to better understand how they may affect individuals or organisations, because we need to get a sense of who the measures focus on and who HMRC will be chasing as a result. It is essential that all tax owed is paid, but given the impact on the Exchequer of the large tax breaks and sweetheart deals that the Government have engaged in, it seems unlikely that the measures will affect those who have avoided the largest amounts of tax. It would be helpful if we understood more about that, which is what our amendment pushes for.
In its briefing, LITRG has some interesting information about this point. It says:
“Many people assume that ‘offshore’ tax matters relate only to the wealthy. However, 24% of daily enquiries to the charity Tax Help for Older People in September 2018 were related to the Worldwide Disclosure Facility. The average age of the callers was 76 and they had small amounts of foreign bank interests and/or pensions.”
It continues:
“In our experience and from insight garnered from THOP, the vast majority of taxpayers who have undisclosed liabilities related to offshore investments will want to be compliant upon simply being made aware of the error”.
LITRG also makes a point about accessibility for non-native English speakers:
“Migrants, whose first language is unlikely to be English and who may therefore struggle to navigate the complex rules on the taxation of offshore income and gains, are another group likely to be affected because they are more likely to have offshore investments prior to their arrival in the UK.”
The measures are significant because they change the conventions on how long taxpayers would anticipate having to save information about their tax affairs. The LITRG briefing states:
“The measure adds complexity to the question of taxpayer certainty on when a tax year is ‘closed’ and impacts on a taxpayer’s record-keeping obligations—effectively requiring people to keep records for 12 years just in case they need to make a disclosure to HMRC. This is well beyond the current statutory time limit for keeping records.”
Most of us, I think, would assume that seven years is the normal period for which one would be sure to keep those records, and 12 years is a significant extension. The Government’s equalities impact statement on the proposals makes no attempt to understand how those different individuals would be affected. We think it is necessary for the Government to look carefully at the question.
As to amendment 142 and amendment 145, which pushes in the same direction, more information is necessary about the proposed revenue effects of the clause. We have spoken many times in Committee about the importance of publishing full and transparent information on policy changes, to allow for proper opposition. We have often felt that there has not been adequate scrutiny of the Bill. Of course, I am saying this on the day that was set for the meaningful vote, which has been cancelled, when we were hoping for a chance to scrutinise another area.
The policy papers accompanying the clause point to “negligible” revenue effects from the change, for at least three years, along with some costs, also described as negligible. I have said many times that it is essential that all tax due should be paid, but one must wonder what the Government are doing when they say that there will be only a negligible impact on revenue from the changes, given the scale of the wider tax gap, and the avoidance going on in certain sectors. It would be helpful to have more information about that, so that we can understand why the Government are prioritising in this direction.
We also need an understanding of the measures in relation to incentives to comply with tax rules, which is what amendment 143 would provide for. The issue is once again eloquently set out by LITRG, which states:
“the proposals erode a general feature of the current law that the circumstances leading to the error determine the length of time which HMRC have in order to raise a discovery assessment. The incentive to take reasonable care is therefore reduced under the proposals, because an individual will have the same time limit applicable when they make a non-deliberate error, whether or not that error is careless.”
So it seems that, according to the experts, the changes may make it less likely that HMRC will collect its full due of tax, and that, instead, incentives not to comply will be created. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s comments on the LITRG assessment. What provisions have the Government put in place to ensure that incentives are not weakened by these measures? If the Government have not put policies and protocols in place, they should accept the amendment and conduct the review the Opposition ask for.
Amendment 145 would apply a review of revenue effects to clause 80, which is similar to what amendment 142 would do. The two clauses need to be taken together, because both impose longer time limits, in relation to income tax and inheritance tax. However, a big area has arguably been missed out—corporation tax. As I understand it, both measures taken together are forecast to raise £15 million in the scorecard up to 2022-23, which is, as I have said, a quite small amount. We feel that that could be because of the decision to restrict this measure to income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax, and not to apply it to corporation tax.
That is peculiar, because there was a commitment in the consultation document to potentially apply the extended time limit to corporation tax as well, dependent on the result of the consultation. The consultation document stated:
“given that many offshore structures involve corporate entities, the government is considering, and would welcome views on, applying this proposal to CT”.
Doing so would have made a lot of sense, because there is currently exact alignment between assessing time limits for companies and individuals—four years for innocent error, six years for carelessness and 20 years for deliberate error or fraud.
However, the Government’s response to the consultation, issued this summer, said that, while the extended time period for assessment will apply to income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax, the Government would, as a result of feedback, not apply the measure to corporation tax at this stage. That leads to many surprising anomalies. In the future, assuming that these measures are enacted, HMRC will have at least 12 years to investigate the affairs of small, unincorporated businesses involved in offshore transactions, but it will have only four years to do so if identical transactions are undertaken by corporates. A small sole trader or partnership whose business involves offshore transactions will be subject to investigation for at least 12 years, while a huge company such as Google or Amazon that is engaged in similar activities will have finality after just four years, unless fraud or carelessness are involved.
At this stage we surely need to know why the Government decided to reject a longer assessment period for corporation tax. There were only 11 responses to the consultation in total, including from some very large firms that work with very large corporates. The response document stated that
“the majority of respondents were not in favour of applying ETL—
extended time limits—
“to corporation tax (CT) and raised concerns about the possible impact on increasing administrative costs if this was done.”
The document said that “12 years of uncertainty” were
“a particular concern for corporates with complex affairs.”
It added that some existing anti-avoidance measures relating to offshore structures do not apply to corporates—it did not state which ones, and corporates are generally subject to more stringent anti-avoidance rules for offshore transactions than individuals—and that applying them would create inconsistencies.
The response document also noted that respondents were concerned about the 12-year time limit applying to those groups subject to controlled foreign company—CFC—rules, even though such rules are designed to apply only to the most egregious avoidance structures, so not the kind that would be targeted by this measure. The document states:
“CFC legislation applies to corporates and their offshore subsidiaries. The application of a 12 year assessment time limit was seen by the majority of respondents as creating major complications for corporates with CFCs who might need to keep records for each subsidiary for many years as a precautionary measure.”
[Interruption.] Ooh, I am about to be beamed up. Anyway, I will continue. In the light of those concerns, the Government said in the response document that they would not apply the extended time limits to corporation tax.
The rationale offered for extended time limits for income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax in the original consultation document was that the existing time limits are inadequate for HMRC to investigate the full facts, because of the complexity of offshore structures. At the same time, the response document says that the reason the measure will not be applied to companies is that the affairs of large companies are so complex that it would represent an unacceptable administrative burden for them to be subject to the same time limits as smaller, unincorporated businesses. I hope the Committee is picking up on some of the paradoxes in this response document.
The response document also asserts that applying extended time limits to companies would create inconsistencies, yet at the moment, as I mentioned, assessing time limits for individuals and companies are aligned. It is this measure that creates the inconsistency by making small businesses subject to new time limits three times longer than those applicable to corporates.
In practice, complex offshore structures are rarely used by small businesses. However, they are routinely employed by multinational enterprises as a way of minimising their tax—for example, the type of structures known to be used by the likes of Google and Amazon that put their profits into territories where no or little tax is paid. Having extra time to investigate the affairs of such companies seems a proper response to their use of these offshore structures, yet they will be unaffected by the new extended time limit rules. On the other hand, small, unincorporated businesses will be subject to them, as well as, potentially, elderly individuals with few resources to draw on to fully understand the complex impact of tax rules.
As well as being unfair, the exception for corporates provides an easy way around the rules. Simply transferring an existing offshore structure into a corporate body means the measure will have no impact. This arguably makes the measures a trap for the poorly advised, while having no impact on those from whom any yield might be expected to derive—multinational enterprises and the wealthy, who can create corporations to avoid potential investigation.
Because of the limits within which the Bill has been set, we cannot directly table an amendment that would push in the direction of including corporates. However, we do ask for a review of revenue impacts because it would enable us to get further into the question of how much revenue this measure could raise as against other measures.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Ladies opposite for their contributions, and I will deal with some of the specific points that were raised and then deal in more general terms with the measures and the amendments.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the issue of retrospectivity. I can assure her that the Law Officers have confirmed that there is nothing retrospective about the measures in the clause. It is the case that no investigation that has been closed, for example, will be reopened as a consequence of the measures here. At the point that the measures come into effect, no one who is, at that point in time, out of scope of the changes would be brought into scope.
On the issue raised by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Oxford East on consultation, we held a public consultation on the details of the reform on 19 February 2018. The consultation closed on 14 May, and the response to the consultation and the draft legislation were published on L-day, on 6 July.
The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the issue of the de minimis amount and referred to LITRG. It is not true that we are not securing significant amounts from the most wealthy, whether individuals or corporations. For the last year for which we have records, 2017-18, HMRC secured £1 billion in tax from the wealthiest individuals and £9 billion from the largest and most complex businesses operating in the UK—tax that would otherwise have gone unpaid.
The hon. Member for Oxford East also raised at length the important issue of why corporation tax is not included along with inheritance tax and income tax. As she said, we consulted on this aspect at some length. The vast majority of responses did not support extending the measure to corporation tax and raised a number of new practical and legal issues with such an extension. The hon. Lady identified some of them, although I know she was not persuaded by the arguments that were put. However, there were a number of them.
For example, the rules that identify offshore issues were not designed for corporates and would result in a wide range of genuine commercial transactions being caught that were never considered when the rules were originally designed. Tax indemnity agreements on the sale or purchase of businesses could also be affected retrospectively, as a 12-year time limit was never anticipated. The 12-year time limit could create major complications for corporates with control of foreign companies—the hon. Lady spoke about that at length. Some corporates are also subject to other rules, such as the senior accounting officer rule, so it was seen as unnecessary to extend the measure to such companies.
The hon. Lady also specifically mentioned Google and Amazon, or a similar type of business, in this context. She should not overlook the fact that we are right at the forefront of looking at a digital services tax to make sure that those companies pay their fair share of tax in the United Kingdom.
Anneliese Dodds
Will the Minister explain whether those firms were strongly in favour of the measures that have been taken in relation to them and others, such as the diverted profits tax, or whether they have argued against them, potentially in consultations? Is consulting those who may, or whose clients may, have a revenue hit as a result of the measure and only listening to them really the appropriate way to make policy?
Mel Stride
I was making a slightly different point. It was not so much about what the response may or may not have been—I do not know the answer to that, regarding the measure that is under consideration by the Committee—but rather about our push to make sure that just those companies pay the appropriate level of taxation in the United Kingdom. Frankly, I think the businesses themselves want to be seen to be paying a fair level of tax. That is the impression that I get from the Treasury perspective. We are not on the back foot on this; we are very much on the front foot, pushing within both the OECD and the European Union to make sure that we can come up with a multilateral solution, which has particular advantages over going it alone. However, we have made it clear, as the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget, that in the event that there is not a multilateral solution, we will of course act unilaterally by 2020.
Kirsty Blackman
Before the Minister goes on to his next point, can I bring him back to the issue of retrospectivity? I am concerned that the Government’s definition of retrospectivity seems to be different from that of the CIT and the LITRG. Will the Minister write to me with his definition of retrospectivity in advance of Report, so that we can see whether we should press the amendment at that time?
Mel Stride
Yes, of course. I would be very happy to do that and in some detail. As I have already suggested, the general point is that those businesses that would not be in scope of these new arrangements, at the moment that they come into effect, would remain out of scope of these arrangements. That is the important point, I think, but I will certainly write to provide further detail.
My final point is about whether we are going soft on larger businesses, which I think was the overarching implication of the hon. Member for Oxford East. She should bear it in mind that at any one time, about half the 210 largest businesses in the United Kingdom are under active investigation. That does not mean that they are doing anything wrong—it may be far from it—but I sincerely believe that HMRC are very good at making sure that those businesses are thoroughly engaged with, particularly the large ones, because that is where a lot of yield lies.
Anneliese Dodds
We are not talking about whether those large businesses are taxed at all, are subject to new tax measures or are investigated at all. What we are talking about are the time limits for that investigation. There is an anomaly in what the Government are presenting between the time limits for corporates against individuals. Surely that is what needs to be addressed.
Mel Stride
I am reflecting the fact that while corporation tax is not covered by these measures, that is not the same thing as saying that we do not have an appropriate regime overall for making sure that large businesses pay their fair share. I was giving some examples such as the diverted profits tax, common reporting standards and all sorts of things, including base erosion and profit shifting, that the hon. Lady will know feed into that particular argument.
To turn to the generality of the measures, clauses 79 and 80 make changes to help ensure that everyone pays the tax they owe. Individuals under inquiry by HMRC for offshore non-compliance will now face assessment for 12 years of back taxes for income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. It applies only to cases where tax losses arise in respect of offshore matters or offshore transfers.
Those clauses will affect only individuals with offshore structures who are not paying the correct amount of tax. The measure is not retrospective as it does not give HMRC the power to reopen any currently closed cases. It is right and fair that everyone pays the tax they owe. It can take longer for HMRC to establish the facts where offshore non-compliance is involved. In some complex offshore cases, tax cannot be collected as the time limits for HMRC to assess the tax run out before the facts can be established.
The changes made by clauses 79 and 80 will ensure that HMRC is able to deal with offshore cases effectively, where the facts are often difficult to establish. The time limit for assessment by HMRC will be extended for non-deliberate behaviour from four years in ordinary circumstances and six years in cases where there was carelessness, to 12 years. The time limit for assessment will remain at 20 years for deliberate behaviour. This measure will help to prevent individuals from avoiding a full investigation by HMRC because of the difficulty in assessing information on offshore structures and investments.
The new extended time limits will not enable HMRC to assess any tax that can no longer be assessed under current rules at the time the legislation comes into force. That was the point at the heart of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. The new time limits will not apply where HMRC has received information in accordance with certain international agreements from other tax authorities, on the basis that it was reasonable to expect an assessment to be made within the existing time limit. The clauses will raise £30 million by 2024.
Amendment 105 would unbalance the safeguards that ensure that the new time limits only apply if HMRC already has the information to make an assessment and could reasonably make it within the current time limits. If the amendment was passed, HMRC could receive information on a tax compliance case that it would be unable to act on. If, for example, information was provided from overseas immediately before the end of the current time limit, HMRC would be timed out of collecting the lost tax. That could incentivise slow responses from overseas intermediaries when partner jurisdictions gather information in response to HMRC requests.
Amendments 106 and 107 would change the years for which the clause would have effect. Where loss of tax is brought about carelessly, that would change from 2013-14 to 2019-20, and where brought about in any other case from 2015-16 to 2019-20. The amendments would water down the Government’s commitment to tackling offshore non-compliance now and delay, for at least a further four years, the additional time that the provision gives HMRC, so that the time limits would only begin to extend from tax year 2023-24. The Government are clear that the provision should start helping HMRC’s compliance work as soon as possible.
Amendment 139 would insert a de minimis threshold of £50 tax loss before the time limit applied. As currently drafted, the clause ensures that HMRC has the time necessary to conduct complex investigations. It is right therefore that HMRC can collect the tax due, regardless of the amount, once it has been calculated. It would be fundamentally unfair if the de minimis principle applied to offshore cases but not to onshore cases.
Anneliese Dodds
Forgive me, but is there a 12-year time limit for onshore cases for individuals?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for very generously giving way again. He said that it would be unfair to create an anomaly between the tax affairs of those with offshore and onshore business, but we have just established that there is not a 12-year time limit for those onshore. Is there not therefore an anomaly?
Mel Stride
This is probably a classic case of me speaking too quickly and the hon. Lady not being given the fair opportunity to digest exactly what I said, which I will repeat, because it is a slightly different point. We are talking about the £50 de minimis, not the 12-year extension. I will reiterate exactly what I said for the hon. Lady’s benefit, so she is absolutely certain that I am not bamboozling her on this point. I said that it is right therefore that HMRC can collect the tax due, regardless of the amount, once it has been calculated. It would be fundamentally unfair if the de minimis principle—I am referring to the £50 threshold—applied to offshore cases but not to onshore cases. In other words, it is her amendment that would create the anomaly.
Anneliese Dodds
I thank the Minister for allowing me to comment on this again. We are surely talking about very different cases. One deals with the normal process of tax collection and investigation, which most individuals assume would apply for seven years, and people need to keep papers for that long. The other is fundamentally different, and deals with the extension of the time limit to 12 years. If we were to do that onshore, then we may also wish to introduce a de minimis for that process, which would, as his measure introduces, go back between seven and 12 years. That is a point that needs to be made.
Mel Stride
I sense that the hon. Lady might have accepted my earlier point that my reference was actually to the £50 de minimis rather than the time limit. She has now introduced another argument, which she prosecuted during her opening remarks—that somehow we should not have a difference in the amount of time to investigate such matters pertaining to whether they are offshore or onshore-related. The whole crux of what we are doing rests on the, I think, fair belief that offshore transactions are less transparent. Those situations are more complicated and often involve dealing with different jurisdictions and intermediaries in order to establish the information that is required for HMRC to carry out its duties. That lies at the heart of why there should be a longer period for offshore entities than for those that are onshore.
Anneliese Dodds
I was talking about the application of a de minimis. I was trying to say that, if the Government were looking, for example, to extend the investigation period for domestic tax affairs beyond the existing time limits, they might even wish to consider a de minimis of £50. I was cognisant of the de minimis—my confusion was caused by the Minister’s remarks. He seemed to suggest that having a de minimis only in relation to offshore tax affairs and not to domestic affairs would be peculiar. We are talking about a de minimis only in those cases of that very long period, not in relation to general tax affairs. I would never say that we should have a de minimis on tax generally, which would mean that we could not pay tax on anything—VAT and so on. That is not what I suggested at all.
Mel Stride
This is probably a discussion for another day, in the sense that the hon. Lady is asking that, in the event that we revisit the issue of the time limits for onshore investigation, we should on that basis consider her amendment anew, because it might dispense with the different treatment between onshore and offshore. We might come to that in another world on another occasion, in another Finance Bill.
I am anxious to make progress—the hon. Member for Bootle sits there looking like he has got all day, but we have to make progress. Amendments 141, 142 and 143 on clause 79, and amendments 144 and 145 on clause 80, would require the Government to review the impact and effectiveness of the clauses within six months of the passing of the Act. Such reviews, however, would not have the intended effect: no data in relation to the characteristics of persons affected, the revenue effects of the changes, or the effects of the changes on incentives on persons to comply, will be available after six months. That is because it is unlikely that a full assessment of any relevant cases will be conducted within the six months after Royal Assent. Thus a report would likely be impossible or meaningless.
On that basis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
If the Minister writes to me with the comments about retrospectivity, it may be that we will not press our proposal to a Division on Report, but I will not press it now in anticipation of receiving that letter.
Anneliese Dodds
I appreciate the Minister’s remarks, but we believe there is still an anomaly, and we remain concerned about the potential treatment of elderly taxpayers and so on. We will press our amendments to the vote.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 139, in clause 79, page 53, line 28, at end insert—
‘(7A) But an assessment under subsection (2) may not be sought by the Commissioners unless they are satisfied that the liability to tax is in excess of £50.’—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This amendment establishes a de minimis threshold for the extended time limits of £50.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 146, in clause 81, page 55, line 39, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the Commissioners have issued guidance on the conditions necessary for an officer of Revenue and Customs to be satisfied that the requirement for security is necessary for the protection of the revenue (for the purposes of the provisions of regulations made in accordance with the duty in subsection (2)).”
This amendment would require the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to issue guidance on how it is determined that security is necessary for the protection of the revenue.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 147, in clause 81, page 56, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this paragraph unless the Commissioners have issued guidance on the conditions necessary for an officer of Revenue and Customs to be satisfied that the requirement for security is necessary for the protection of the revenue (for the purposes of the provisions of regulations made in accordance with the duty in sub-paragraph (2)).”
This amendment would require the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to issue guidance on how it is determined that security is necessary for the protection of the revenue.
Amendment 148, in clause 81, page 56, line 44, at end insert—
“(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by this section on the construction industry and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of the provisions of Clause 81 on the construction industry.
Clause 81 stand part.
Anneliese Dodds
The overall aims of the clause appear sensible, providing HMRC with powers to make secondary legislation to require a person to provide security for corporation tax liabilities and construction industry scheme deductions that are or may be liable to HMRC. Under the clause, failure to provide security when required will be a summary offence and a person who has committed it will be subject to a fine.
As I understand it, securities may be required where a taxpayer has a poor compliance record, and in phoenix-type cases where a business accrues a tax debt, goes into liquidation or administration and the person responsible for the operation of the business sets up again, with the risk of running up further tax debts. Sadly, we have seen far too many of those cases.
The measure is effectively an extension of HMRC’s powers to require security in relation to some areas of business tax—the powers it has currently—to include VAT and PAYE, as well as national insurance contributions, insurance premium tax and some environmental and gambling taxes.
The Government maintain that the clause will be specifically targeted at the minority of businesses that seek financial gain from non-compliance with their tax obligations rather than those that are genuinely unable to pay. They argue that it will not affect those who are managing their debts with HMRC under agreed time-to-pay arrangements with which they are complying—we have touched on that subject previously.
The Government argue that the power will apply only where an HMRC officer considers that the provision of a security is necessary to protect revenue. None the less, we believe that the changes merit further scrutiny, and therefore have tabled a number of amendments.
Amendment 146 seeks to introduce a requirement for HMRC officials to issue guidance on their use of securities to protect revenue. It is a probing amendment that seeks to clarify the circumstances under which a security will be requested for revenue protection. We do not in principle object to the measures being taken to protect revenue—they appear essentially sensible—but we seek to understand better the scope offered to HMRC officials in making such a judgment or, conversely, the guidance they are offered by the Department in making such a decision.
Will the Minister clarify what guidance will be offered and undertake to publish it later? After all, in the Government’s consultation, the feedback was pretty clear. The feedback document stated:
“Most respondents wanted to see clear guidance put in place to support the introduction of the securities and ensure that securities will only be used where it’s appropriate and proportionate to do so. Two thought that legislation should be expanded to provide the rules under which the securities regime should operate.”
How have the Government responded to that point? It is clear that more transparency is needed.
With amendment 147, which follows the previous one, we are likewise seeking to determine what guidance HMRC commissioners would receive. As I said, we do not object in principle to the use of securities to protect tax revenues; we simply seek to understand how and when they will be applied and whether the guidance is determined by Government policy or subject to the discretion of officials. I hope the Minister will either provide that information to the Committee or accept our amendment, which would ensure that further information is provided before these powers are enacted.
The policy papers relating to the clauses suggest that that is necessary. They state:
“Experience from the existing securities regime has shown that, when used in a carefully targeted manner, securities can be very effective in changing the behaviour of non-compliant businesses and protecting future revenues against the risk of non-payment. Currently these powers apply only to certain taxes and duties.”
We need to understand how these powers will be targeted and which criteria will be used. I hope the Minister will respond to that reasonable request.
Through amendment 148, we seek to understand how the new measure will affect the construction industry. As I said, this is an extension of the security deposit legislation to the construction industry scheme and companies chargeable to corporation tax. The documents on the impact of the policy do not discuss the construction industry in detail. The expectation should be that anyone avoiding tax should pay, but it is clear that providing a security could reduce capital stock in some companies, so we need a sense of the impact on those who may be required to pay a security. Again, that was reflected in the Government’s consultation, which stated:
“Several respondents commented specifically on the implications for insolvency and commented that HMRC should give careful consideration in cases where viable businesses were struggling financially and a security could force the business into insolvency. Similarly, respondents did not want the use of securities to limit the rescue environment for financially distressed businesses. One respondent suggested that before extending the security deposit regime, HMRC should commission independent research into its current approach and the effect that demands for a deposit have on struggling businesses.”
The context is that HMRC has lost a large number of its experienced staff, who might have had expertise in security regimes in relation to other taxes. Therefore, we need to know what the impact is likely to be on businesses that may have to deal with HMRC officers who have less understanding of the construction industry than previously would have been the case.
Finally, I note that we are informed by the tax information and impact note that HMRC will need to make changes to its IT systems to process the new security cases. The cost of the changes is estimated to be in the region of £840,000. It will also incur operational costs currently estimated to be in the region of £5 million. Those costs seem fairly high to me. I hope the Minister will explain why they are of such a significant magnitude.
Kirsty Blackman
Very briefly, if the Labour party chooses to press these amendments to a vote, we will support it, because we think that what it is trying to achieve is very sensible.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East for her questions, most of which I will come to in my general statement on the clause. It is good to hear that she broadly welcomes the general thrust of what we are doing. I think she said that amendments 146 and 147 are probing amendments, and raised various issues about the guidance. Of course, those who are to be affected by the measures will have a right of appeal—they will be able to go to a tribunal to dispute the imposition of advance payments. During the period of dispute, the payment is not required to be made. That is an important point. They will also be invited to comment with HMRC—and have a right to do so—on the proposed level of payment being sought during the process by which it is determined. If their circumstances change at any point in the process or thereafter, that is an opportunity for further discussion and potentially change in the amounts that might be involved. I will pick up one or two other points on guidance in my general remarks.
Anneliese Dodds
In the light of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Resolution of double taxation disputes
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 82, page 58, line 9, leave out from “section” to “may” in line 10.
This amendment provides for all regulations under the new power to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 138, in clause 82, page 58, leave out lines 13 to 17.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 137.
Amendment 149, in clause 82, page 59, line 15, at end insert—
“128D Review of effects of EU withdrawal
(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effect on the exercise of the power to make regulations under section 128A in the event that—
(a) the UK leaves the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement,
(b) the UK leaves the European Union following a negotiated withdrawal agreement.
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review under subsection (1) before the House of Commons within two months of the passing of the Finance Act 2019.”
This amendment would review the impact of the main powers under clause 82 in the event the UK leaves the EU under (a) no deal or (b) a withdrawal agreement.
Amendment 150, in clause 82, page 59, line 15, at end insert—
“128D Review of revenue effects of section 128A regulations
On each occasion the Treasury exercises the power to make regulations under section 128A, the regulations (or, as the case may be, the draft regulations) must be accompanied by a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the expected revenue effects of the regulations.”
This amendment would require any regulations to be accompanied by a statement on expected revenue effects.
Clause stand part.
Kirsty Blackman
I will come to amendments 137 and 138, but first I would like to speak briefly to Labour amendments 149 and 150.
We have seen the complete and total shambles over the past 24 hours—and not just over that period, but over the past two years. The past 24 hours have highlighted where we are in relation to EU withdrawal. Various people are suggesting that no deal is more and more likely, so it is incredibly important we know the potential effects of any changes that the Government propose to make to legislation in the event of a negotiated deal or no negotiated deal. We have a clear idea of the effect of retaining the status quo, which is the Scottish National party’s preferred position, and the revenue effects would be much easier to calculate. We are comfortable supporting Labour’s amendment 149 on that subject and amendment 150, which is about the expected revenue effect of the regulations.
I turn to the two SNP amendments. Amendment 138 is consequential on amendment 137, so I will focus on amendment 137. Given what has happened in recent times, trust in the Government is possibly at its lowest ever point. We are being asked to agree to give the Government power to make changes without going through proper scrutiny procedures. The Government are basically asking us to trust them, and we feel that we cannot trust pretty much anything they say right now, so more scrutiny is sensible.
When people who support leave talk about the European Union referendum and Brexit, they talk about taking power away from faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and returning it to Parliament. A lot of the legislation that is being considered just now does not return that power to Parliament in any meaningful way, and it does not allow Parliament proper scrutiny of the range of things that could come through. We are talking here about just one small area, but that problem has been highlighted in a huge number of things that have come out of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There is massive concern from members of the general public, who now understand what Henry VIII powers are—we are in unprecedented times. There has been a power grab from the Scottish Parliament, and this is one more small thing the Government are trying to do to take power away from where it should sit.
Given that the Government cannot command a majority in the House; given that they folded on SNP amendments to the Bill—that was, clearly, because the SNP amendments were wonderful, rather than because the Government did not have a majority—and given that they cannot get legislation through, the level of Executive power needs to be tested. We need to make the Government use their majority if they want to get powers through the House, rather than relying on the fact that because they are the Government, they can do what they like. That is why the SNP has tabled amendment 137, which would require the Government to ensure that more of the regulations made under clause 82 go through the proper scrutiny procedure, rather than relying on the Treasury to make some of them without proper scrutiny.
Anneliese Dodds
I will speak briefly to the clause. The hon. Lady has set out the SNP’s reasons for tabling amendments 137 and 138. The official Opposition agree with those reasons, and it seems highly sensible to require regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have argued for that consistently in relation to our future relationship with the EU and the no deal process. We are concerned about the wholesale power grab that unfortunately appears to be continuing apace. We would support SNP Members if they decided to press their amendments to a vote.
We have tabled two amendments, and I am pleased to hear that the SNP support them. Under the Prime Minister’s proposed withdrawal agreement, the UK would initially, at least, continue to align itself with EU regulations, but little information has been provided alongside the clause to indicate how the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal would impact on Council directive 2017/1852, particularly if there was divergence later on. Similarly, the Treasury’s policy note offers no guidance about whether the EU’s resolution mechanism would be upheld for all future double taxation disputes in the event of a no deal Brexit.
That is of a piece with the general lack of information about the Government’s anticipated future relationship on tax matters with the EU. I have consistently asked whether we would seek to be a member of the code of conduct group, for example, and I have had no indication of the Government’s views on that matter. With that in mind, the Opposition have tabled amendment 149, which would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of the powers under clause 82 in the event that the UK leaves the EU under a no deal Brexit or under the current withdrawal agreement—or whatever it becomes. It is unclear whether it will be changed or whether assurances will simply be produced in relation to it. Whatever happens, we may or may not be voting on it at some point, hopefully in the near future. Amendment 149 would require the Treasury to offer a clear indication of how the EU’s dispute resolution mechanism for double tax disputes would be maintained, and the likelihood of the different possibilities.
Amendment 150 would require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the revenue effects of the measure. The Treasury policy note states that the measure will raise no revenue and will have no economic impact on taxpayers. That is rather hard to believe, given that even the most benign change to the tax system can have far-reaching and unseen consequences. They may be unpredictable, but surely it would be better to say that than to say that the change will have no impact. The Chancellor would therefore be required to outline in the review the possibility of any unforeseen economic impacts, and the revenues that are likely to be raised from this measure after the Treasury makes regulations to use the powers.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Had we had a meaningful vote today—we are not going to have one—I would have voted with the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North. However, I find it a little strange that those who intend to vote against the agreement should criticise the Government for a no deal Brexit, because ultimately that is not the Government’s position.
There are about 800 statutory instruments for leaving the European Union. About 600 of them are negative, and a hundred and something are affirmative. It is perfectly possible for the Opposition to pick any number of negatives to pray against. If the Opposition have a problem with something, they can pray against it when it appears on the Order Paper and get a debate. There is a remedy for hon. Members’ concerns, but the reality is that so many of these things are modest and technical, and there are more important matters of principle for us to discuss. I do not think we want to spend a lot of time in this Committee or others debating minor, technical issues.
Kirsty Blackman
I am on the European Statutory Instruments Committee, as are other Committee members. Sifting the proposed negative statutory instruments and changing some of them into proposed affirmatives has been a really interesting and useful process, which has shown us that the Government do not always make the right decision. Something like that for the long term would probably allay some of our concerns.
Sir Robert Syms
I come back to my basic point that there are certain matters of principle that are good for parliamentary debate, and there are minor, technical matters, such as those dealing with the Inland Revenue. I am not sure that debating the latter would bring much to the sum of human happiness. I also make the point that, although the Conservative party does not enjoy a majority in the House of Commons, the Scottish National party does not enjoy a majority in the Scottish Parliament, so we are all sort of in the same boat.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about technical matters and grander principles. However, given that the Government have not allowed us to amend the law in any significant way, the Committee is left at this point poring over the detail—the grander principles are being brushed aside by the Government. We are unable to scrutinise the Bill at the grander level or at the specific level.
Sir Robert Syms
The hon. Member makes his own point. We have discussed Budgets and Finance Bill Committees before. The Bill has been on the Floor of the House and will go back there. There will be endless debates, and I am perfectly sure that he and his formidable Front-Bench team will be able to make their points when the Bill goes back to the House. Ultimately, the Government have taken a perfectly pragmatic view, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Mel Stride
An interesting observation: as soon as “EU” appears in a clause, we suddenly have more interest from the Committee than for other measures. Ms Dorries, I will endeavour not to stray into too much detail around the pros and cons of the current deal and the White Paper and all that kind of stuff, and will stick to the clause.
The clause enables the Government to make changes to bring into force the regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the EU directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms within the European Union. Double taxation arises when the same profits are taxed twice by two different tax authorities. It can create serious obstacles for businesses operating across borders by creating excessive tax burdens, leading to inefficiencies and an economic disincentive to trade. An effective tax dispute resolution system can help to alleviate double taxation.
The UK is a signatory to the convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises within member states of the European Union, known as the arbitration convention. The UK has also entered into bilateral tax treaties with every EU member state for the purpose of eliminating double taxation. Following a review, it was concluded that the mechanisms currently provided for in bilateral tax treaties and the arbitration convention might not achieve the effective resolution of double taxation disputes between member states in all cases in a timely manner. Consequently, the directive was adopted to build on existing systems. The UK supported the aims of the directive and agreed the adopted text in 2017.
The powers contained within the clause are necessary to enable the Government to introduce secondary legislation to implement the directive. Some proposed amendments would apply the draft affirmative procedure to all regulations made under the clause. As it stands, the Bill ensures that the scrutiny procedures applying to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate. The primary purpose of these powers is to give effect to an EU directive that has already been published. The exercise of the powers will therefore be a largely technical exercise—a point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), who also raised the important point that Committee members who wish to further debate a negative SI can of course can pray against it—to transpose the agreed text into UK law. It would not be appropriate to apply the affirmative procedure to all the regulations.
An amendment has also been tabled that asks for a review of the effect on the exercise of the power contained in the clause of the UK leaving the EU with or without a negotiated withdrawal agreement within two months of the Finance Act 2019 being passed. The Government’s intention is for a negotiated withdrawal agreement to apply to the UK, and therefore an implementation period, so that we can use the powers in the clause to implement the EU directive. As a responsible Government, we are also planning for the unlikely event of leaving the EU without a deal. Given the reciprocal nature of double tax dispute resolution, it is difficult to see how legislation implementing the directive can work in a no-deal scenario, but we do not think it would be beneficial to commit to producing a report so close to EU exit, and before the transposition deadline of the directive in June 2019.
A further amendment asks for a statement by the Chancellor on the revenue effects of the exercise of the power under the clause. The Government intend to publish a tax information and impact note for the draft regulations. That will include an assessment of the expected revenue effects of the regulations. I am pleased to say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole thoroughly approves of the tax information and impact notes regime which, as he knows, is rigorous and helpful. As a result there will be no need for the Chancellor to make an additional statement to the House.
Kirsty Blackman
I do not have much to add other than that I still want to press amendment 137 to a vote.
Anneliese Dodds
Briefly, the Minister referred to TIINs. I wonder whether, for the next Finance Bill, he will commit to ensuring clear linking from the Bill website to the different TIINs so that we can quickly see which one applies to each clause. It has been quite a waste of time having to search for them randomly.
As to the question whether the provisions should be examined using the affirmative procedure or should have to be prayed against using the negative procedure, I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Poole. However, we all know that, when measures are dealt with by the affirmative procedure by default, much greater attention needs to be given to them. That is the reality. Generally, I fear that attention is not always paid to matters that may superficially appear technical but that, when one delves into them, may be discovered to have a concrete impact on different groups. Even with the affirmative procedure, the level of debate on taxation matters has, I would argue, traditionally been quite limited. I note that, for the first time in Parliament’s history, we have recently had votes in relation to tax treaties. I was pleased that we motivated those votes, yet UK tax treaties with other countries have never been subjected to proper scrutiny in the House.
Many matters covered by Delegated Legislation Committees are not purely technical. In fact, this has been talked about by my hon. Friend, who represents Leeds—help me out. [Hon. Members: “Stalybridge!”] I am sorry, I am not great at the memory game. In talking recently about some of the no-deal planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has been talking about the potential for some of those measures to have such a significant impact that the Government themselves are not au fait with it. Given the time allotted, they seem to expect the Opposition to pass them with a rather cursory glance. I am afraid, therefore, that the suggestion that we already have a failsafe system for dealing with some of those significant matters is simply incorrect, so if the SNP presses amendment 137 to the vote, we shall support it. However, we will not press our amendments.
Mel Stride
Perhaps I may quickly respond, Ms Dorries, just to say that on the important matter of the TIINs, and the link from the website, I know that the hon. Lady raised that on a previous clause, and I should be happy to look into it for her. If she has any specific ideas that she would like to put to me in that respect, I should be grateful to receive them.
Finally, on the matter of negative SI procedure, and prayers against such measures, in the event that we have an effective, strong, organised, united and well led Opposition, I am sure that that will not be beyond them.
Question put, that the amendment be made.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 151, in clause 84,page 62, line 5, at end insert—
“(11) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of the remedy introduced by this section, together with section 85, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effectiveness of the new statutory remedy one year after its adoption into law.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
Amendment 152, in clause 84, page 62, line 5, at end insert—
“(11) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effect of the remedy introduced by this section, together with section 85 on corporation tax receipts and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of the new statutory remedy on corporation tax receipts.
Clause stand part.
Clause 85 stand part.
Jonathan Reynolds
It is lovely to see you in the chair again today, Ms Dorries. I will speak to clause 84 and our amendments which, as you described, also cover clause 85, which is a supplementary clause.
Clause 84 relates to a somewhat historic issue—the payment of advance corporation tax known as ACT. ACT was payable when companies distributed dividends to shareholders before main corporation taxes were due. These payments could then be offset in profit and loss calculations potentially to reduce the overall tax bill. ACT was abolished under Gordon Brown’s tenure as Chancellor in 1999 to prevent its abuse mitigating revenues to the Exchequer, and to encourage reinvestment rather than excessive dividend payments.
However, there are some legacy cases relating to ACT claims. The clauses are the result of a legal judgment from the Supreme Court test case that impacts those claims—that of Prudential Assurance Company Limited and HMRC on 25 July 2018. This case gave rise to a number of judgments in relation to ACT. I will not read it in full—
Jonathan Reynolds
I know. Prudential put the case that it was entitled to compound rather than simple interest on the repayment, given that some of the tax that was levied, it claimed, was in breach of EU law. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this analysis and subsequently found in favour of HMRC. The amounts at stake are very significant—they were listed as £4 billion to £5 billion according to media reports at the time. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision is clearly welcome when public finances are under such severe pressure.
The test case has helped to clarify outstanding issues relating to ACT. It is important that the Statute book reflects this decision and is fully up to date to remove any uncertainty for taxpayers with historic claims. It is an additional bonus that the Supreme Court decision has not created a further liability for HMRC in repaying compound interest.
However, we must be clear whether this change, while it relates to a legacy tax, will have any impact on current taxation matters. This is especially pertinent when it relates to corporation tax receipts.
Labour has tabled two amendments. We may not necessarily press them to a Division, but they will be useful to our discussions. Amendments 151 and 152 would, respectively, call on the Government to review the effectiveness of this new statutory remedy one year after its adoption into law and review its impact on corporation tax receipts. These reviews would play an important role in judging the overall impact of the judgment. As I have outlined, the liabilities at stake are very significant. It is essential that we have a clear understanding of whether the provision will give rise to any changes in revenue collection. I call on Members to look at the amendments and ensure we have the clarity and transparency needed to scrutinise the measure in full.
Is the Minister aware of any further issues that may relate to historic ACT claims that we should be aware of? Given that the numbers at stake are so large, we seek reassurance that no other potential liabilities could arise for HMRC in relation to legacy challenges.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. On his specific question of whether any other issues related to ACT might give rise to liability to HMRC, I am not immediately aware of any, but I will write to confirm whether that is the case.
The advance corporation tax or ACT system, which was repealed as long ago as 1999, has been found to be unlawful in certain circumstances. Clauses 84 and 85 provide a new legal remedy for claims against HMRC in limited circumstances. A number of cases involving ACT have been argued before the courts over a lengthy period. This litigation continues but it is now clear that some ACT was paid unlawfully.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court overruled an earlier decision of the House of Lords from 2007. That has created uncertainty as to what remedies might be available where unlawfully paid ACT was repaid or set against corporation tax before claims against HMRC were started. The law requires that in those cases there needs to be a remedy. The courts are able to consider that but, given the uncertainty, it is desirable for Parliament to consider what that should be in order to provide a fair and balanced outcome.
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Voluntary returns
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 153, in clause 86, page 64, line 45, at end insert—
‘(9) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of the changes made to the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Finance Act 1998 by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effectiveness of the provision for voluntary tax returns.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 154, in clause 86, page 64, line 45, at end insert—
‘(9) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the changes made to the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Finance Act 1998 by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effectiveness of the provision for voluntary tax returns.
Amendment 155, in clause 86, page 64, line 45, at end insert—
‘(9) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the resources that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs to implement the measures in this section relating to tax returns delivered otherwise than in pursuance of a requirement to do so and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within two months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the HMRC resourcing needed for the provision for voluntary tax returns.
Clause 86 stand part.
I call Anneliese Dodds to move amendment 153—[Interruption.] I am sorry: Jonathan Reynolds.
Jonathan Reynolds
Thank you, Chair. The most exciting clauses have been taken from me. I am very grateful to have been allowed to take this on voluntary returns. On occasion, individuals submit returns to HMRC before a statutory notice requiring the return has been delivered. That applies to many different types of individuals, including those carrying out an income tax self-assessment, and individuals on PAYE who believe they are due a return.
HMRC has historically accepted such returns, given that it would be a considerable drain on resources to reject them and ask taxpayers needlessly to resend them. However, following a ruling by the first-tier tribunal in April 2018, it has been decided that that policy is not supported by law. Therefore, to ensure that the practice can continue, we understand the clause will bring about the legislative change needed so that the position is supported in law. An HMRC appeal is under way because it is possible that this could invalidate historical returns if it is refused by a higher court.
We are talking about significant numbers of returns, as was revealed during the tribunal hearing by HMRC. The Government receive about 350,000 returns of this type each year. Those are in the main from PAYE taxpayers who do not need to complete the self-assessment return but who are seeking a repayment. In its statement accompanying the case, HMRC stated:
“This policy provides a mutually beneficial administrative arrangement for customers and HMRC. The alternative would be that HMRC would have to reject returns submitted voluntarily, issue a formal s8 notice and the customer would have to resubmit the return. This would add unnecessary administrative burdens to both customers and HMRC, causing unnecessary delay in HMRC processing returns, claims and repayments.”
As part of the ambition to put the customer at the heart of what HMRC does, it has introduced a simple assessment for 2016-17 onwards, to enable HMRC to send customers with straightforward tax affairs a simple assessment notice of their liability, without the need for them to resubmit a self-assessment return. It expects that this will significantly reduce the number of voluntary returns it receives each year, and PAYE customers who are not already in self-assessment will not need to complete a self-assessment tax return to get a refund. HMRC also has long-term plans to abolish annual tax returns as part of the Making Tax Digital strategy.
As we are near the end of the Committee, I do not think we need to go through the long history of issues relating to Making Tax Digital, but we have made these points many times before, both in this Committee and in previous Finance Bill Committees. For smaller businesses, Making Tax Digital will add a significant reporting burden by requiring them to switch from one report a year to four. Making Tax Digital will still be being implemented in April 2019, coinciding with our departure from the EU, and putting a significant compliance burden on businesses if there are also VAT changes.
In addition, according to HMRC’s own figures, a shocking 4 million calls to HMRC went unanswered in 2017. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said in the previous Finance Bill Committee, if people call up to pay their taxes, they should be able to get through. Given that the deficit has not yet been eliminated, one would think that the Government would welcome people voluntarily ringing up to pay more tax. Therefore, this change to legislation seems sensible. It would avoid any further costs or administrative pressures on HMRC at an already challenging time for the organisation. I can only imagine the enormous burden it would present if the historical treatment of 350,000 returns was judged to be invalid.
We need more insight into how HMRC resources might be affected to ensure that this measure does not have any unintended consequences. Therefore, Labour has tabled three amendments to give us the information needed to assess this properly. Amendment 153 would require the Government to review the effectiveness of this provision for voluntary tax returns within one year. It seems that the process of submission for voluntary tax returns is working reasonably effectively at present. This review would allow us better to understand whether moving into a more formal framework has any potential negative impacts.
Amendment 154 would allow us to make the same assessment, but with regard to the effects on revenue. If the provision has any impact on tax collection, it is important that it is quickly identified and remedied.
Finally, amendment 155 would require the Government to review the HMRC resourcing needed for the provision of voluntary tax returns by publishing a document to that effect within one year. As I have outlined, HMRC has faced severe cuts at a time when demands are increasing across several fronts—particularly as the UK leaves the European Union. Therefore, it is critical that we understand whether there will be any further draws on HMRC resources over the course of the provision’s implementation. I urge hon. Members to support the amendments and Labour’s efforts to guarantee that we have an HMRC that functions effectively, both for taxpayers and for tax collection.
Mel Stride
Clause 86 makes changes to HMRC’s ability to treat tax returns sent involuntarily like any return on a statutory basis with retrospective and prospective effect. It is necessary because these returns have been accepted and treated in the same way as any other tax return received by HMRC for more than 20 years using its collection and management powers. However, a tax tribunal ruled earlier this year that this policy was not supported by the law.
HMRC receives about 600,000 voluntary tax returns each year. They are voluntary because they are made without any requirement or request from HMRC to do so. People in businesses send them in because they want either to pay tax or to make tax repayment claims. HMRC has always accepted those returns and treated them like any other return. This policy is helpful for taxpayers who send in returns because they are concerned that their affairs are not up to date. If HMRC did not accept voluntary returns when a taxpayer sent in a return, it would have to formally ask them for a return, and they would need to refile it.
Amendments 153 and 154 would require the Government to publish reports about the effectiveness and revenue effects of the clause. Such reports are unnecessary. The purpose of the clause is not to change existing practice but to give it legal certainty. Reporting on its impact is therefore unnecessary, as there will be no change in either practice or revenue. Amendment 155 would require the Government to lay a report into the resources that HMRC needs to implement the clause. The clause will have no impact on HMRC’s resources and will not change HMRC’s practice of accepting returns sent in on a voluntary basis. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 15—Review of late payment interest rates in respect of promoters of tax avoidance schemes—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the viability of increasing any relevant interest rate charged by virtue of the specified provisions on the late payment of penalties for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes to 6.1% per annum and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) In this section, “the specified provisions” means—
(a) section 178 of FA 1989, and
(b) sections 101 to 103 of FA 2009.”
New clause 16—Review of late payment interest rates in respect of promoters of tax avoidance schemes (No. 2)—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the appropriateness of any relevant interest rate charged by virtue of the specified provisions on the late payment of penalties for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) In this section, “the specified provisions” means—
(a) section 178 of FA 1989, and
(b) sections 101 to 103 of FA 2009.”
New clause 17—Review interest rate equalisation—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the viability of equalising any relevant interest rate charged by virtue of the specified provisions for the specified purposes and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) In this section—
“the specified provisions” means section 101 of FA 2009,
“the specified purposes” means the charging of interest for—
(a) late payment, and
(b) repayment.”.
Mel Stride
Clause 87 is designed to clarify legislative provisions in relation to interest charged by HMRC across several tax regimes. The changes will ensure that the provisions apply as Parliament intended, and provide legal certainty for HMRC and taxpayers.
New clauses 15 and 16 would require the Government to report on the level of interest charged on penalties for promoters of tax avoidance schemes, and specifically on the viability of increasing interest rates on the late payment of penalties for those promoters. That is not necessary and, in explaining why, it may be helpful if I set out the rationale behind the rates.
Interest is charged on these penalties in the same way as it is charged on other overdue payments to HMRC; it is not affected by what the penalty is for. The penalty itself is designed to be the punitive measure tackling tax avoidance promoters. Interest is designed simply to give commercial restitution on all amounts that are paid late and, as such, it is currently set at 3.25% across HMRC and is linked to the Bank of England base rate. Reviewing the level of interest charged on overdue promoters’ penalties would therefore be of limited value in addressing avoidance.
New clause 17 would require the Government to report on the viability of equalising late payment and repayment interest on penalties charged under the promoters of tax avoidance scheme rules. Charging different rates of interest to those paid out is similar to commercial practice and in line with the policy of other international authorities. A higher rate of repayment interest would over-compensate those who pay the wrong amount. A lower rate of late payment interest would be an insufficient deterrent and unfair to the majority, who pay on time. The difference encourages people to pay the right amount at the right time to HMRC.
I urge the Opposition not to press their new clauses and I commend clause 87 to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
As the Minister has said, the clause relates to two legislative changes that would alter the way that interest can be charged and paid on tax under section 178 of the Finance Act 1989, as well as setting interest rates for certain purposes, including retrospectively for diverted profits tax, and providing for interest to be charged under section 101 of the Finance Act 2009 on particular penalties for PAYE from 6 May 2014.
The charging of interest is an important source of revenue to the Exchequer. It is a fundamental principle that the same rules apply to all taxpayers and there may therefore be circumstances in which it is appropriate to charge interest on late payments in the same way that HMRC offers interest on tax refunds that exceed a period of one tax year. That charge is an important tool and deterrent for tax avoidance and late payments.
The diverted profits tax in particular, which was introduced in 2015 as the so-called Google tax, is at least a step in the direction of ensuring that large multinational companies pay their fair share. As the Committee has discussed in previous clauses, certain multinational companies, through dint of their presence in multiple jurisdictions and the armies of tax planners at their disposal, have used a variety of tactics to minimise their tax obligations. While we welcome DPT as step in the right direction, the public are clear that more action should be taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East spoke in depth about DPT in an earlier sitting of the Committee. She explained that the diverted profits tax focuses on two forms of tax avoidance. The first is where a company with a UK-taxable presence uses arrangements lacking economic substance to artificially divert profits from the UK. The second is where a person carries out activities in the UK for a foreign company that are designed to avoid creating a permanent establishment through which they would be taxable. The Minister promised to lay before the House a report on the impact on revenue made by the mechanics of the application of DPT. When that information is made available, the Opposition will carefully consider it to assess the efficiency of the diverted profits tax. It must be considered in the round, in the light of the incoming digital services tax, which will struggle to be effective if it is not carefully planned around the unique structure of digital companies across multiple jurisdictions.
In relation to PAYE penalties where interest may be chargeable, I ask the Minister to provide further clarity around the changes. While I reiterated previously that there must be a fair and equal application of the rules, interest and penalty charging can cause serious hardship for individuals, especially when applied retrospectively for unintentional and unwitting errors committed by the taxpayer. Can the Minister elaborate on what consultation has taken place with low-income groups on the provision, to give us a sense of whether an impact assessment has been carried out? To which sections do the retrospective aspects of the legislation apply?
In the current situation with the 2019 loan charge, which stretches back over many years having been applied retrospectively, there is ample evidence that it causes serious hardship for individuals who, in some cases, say that they have been induced into such a scheme by a third-party, without full knowledge of its application. We must therefore exercise the utmost caution when applying any retrospective rules that cover individuals. I was pleased to read, however, that the legislation allows for interest charging on promoters of tax avoidance, in line with section 101 of the 2009 Act. We must ensure that we are pursuing promoters with the full force of the law, to tackle the root causes of avoidance and evasion.
The Opposition have therefore tabled a number of new clauses to the Bill. New clause 17 would require the Chancellor to review the viability of equalising HMRC’s late payment interest rate with the repayment interest rate. The new clause attempts to address a clear imbalance and perceived unfairness in the current interest rates set by HMRC. As it stands, if a taxpayer owes HMRC tax and is late in paying it, a charge of 3.25% interest is added. That is in stark contrast to HMRC’s own repayment rate, which, when paying things back, stands at just 0.5%. That double standard is exacerbated by the Government’s recent raising of late payment interest rates for all taxpayers by 0.25%.
The ACCA accountancy body has described that imbalance over late payments as “simply unfair,” and called for a level playing field to ensure that HMRC sets the same late payment rate as it charges. That is certainly something that the Opposition believe that the Government should review because it is ultimately a question of fairness. There should not be one rule for taxpayers and another for HMRC, as that simply breeds dissatisfaction with the tax system and those who enforce it.
Labour Members are committed to a tax system with justice and fairness at its heart, and we recognise the Government’s clear failings on the handling of HMRC’s powers, which were recently recorded extensively by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee. I hope that all sides of the House will consider supporting this review.
The Opposition’s new clause 16 would require the Chancellor to review the interest rate on late payment of penalties for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes. New clause 15 would require the Chancellor to consider raising the interest rate on late payment of penalties to 6.1%. The introduction of penalties for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes is relatively new. However, it is rather depressing to think that the promoters of tax avoidance schemes, who are then issued penalties, will pay less interest on late payments than the interest currently applied to student loans. Surely it says something about the Government’s priorities that they would allow a lesser interest rate on the late payment of penalties by those who advertise and encourage people to use tax avoidance schemes than the 6.1% interest rate that is charged to students in the UK.
New clause 15 would instead force the Chancellor to review the interest charged on late payments of penalties by the promoters of tax avoidance schemes and consider raising them to 6.1%. This would act as a deterrent when it comes to the late payment of penalties and it would also force the Government to consider the absurdly high interest rates that student loans are currently subject to. I call on Members to support the Opposition’s amendments on these issues today, to ensure that HMRC can operate fairly and effectively. I would also be grateful to hear some clarity and reassurance from the Minister about the retrospective elements of this legislation.
Mel Stride
There is no need for consultation on this measure because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it was just putting beyond doubt what has been established practice over a very long period. He raised the issue of retrospection. The measure is retrospective, inasmuch as it is putting beyond doubt the fact that these rates were appropriate in the past. We are just bringing the long-standing practice out of any sense of uncertainty.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the loan charge was retrospective. It is not, because the arrangements entered into under the loan charge scenario were always defective. They never worked at the time when they were entered into, and therefore the tax was due in the past. It is being collected in the present.
Anneliese Dodds
In that case, when advisers advised individuals to undertake these schemes, were they promoting illegal schemes? It would help to have a clear answer on that.
Mel Stride
They were in many cases promoting schemes that did not work and were defective, and in many cases promoting schemes that had been taken through the courts by HMRC—and, in a case involving Rangers football club, through the Supreme Court. On each occasion, they have been found defective.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister says those schemes were defective; is he saying that they were illegal?
Mel Stride
I am saying that the schemes were taken through the courts and were found defective; they were found not to work. As this is the third exchange between us, let us be clear about what lies at the heart of the way in which these schemes operate. If as an employer I said to an employee, “Instead of paying you normal earnings, from which you would pay your national insurance and your income tax—as the employer, I would pay the national insurance—I will pay you by way of a loan. You and I know it is not really a loan, as there is no intention of you ever repaying it. I may well send that loan to an offshore trust”—as many of these schemes do—“before sending it back to you. The consequence is you pay no, or next to no, tax, because it is treated as a loan, not earnings or income.” That lies at the heart of these schemes. That model never worked, and the schemes were always defective at the time they were entered into.
Anneliese Dodds
However, those taxpayers who are required to face the loan charge have been told that they have done something illegal. I am asking the Minister whether those who advised them to undertake these schemes were advising them to do something illegal, because the advisers have not faced anything as a result of this, whereas the taxpayers have.
Mel Stride
The enablers and promoters of those schemes have been subject to various pieces of legislation, going back a number of years. In almost every Finance Act, or every year, there has been legislation clamping down on them. They are subject to a penalty of up to £1 million as a consequence of that kind of behaviour. Where they have acted inappropriately, the legislation is there, and HMRC has the powers to pursue them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
Regulatory capital securities and hybrid capital instruments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 156, in schedule 19, page 315, line 15, at end insert —
“Part 4
Statement on consultation
“22 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a statement on the consultation undertaken on the provisions of this Schedule no later than two months after the passing of this Act.”
Amendment 158, in schedule 19, page 315, line 15, at end insert —
“Part 4
Review of revenue effects
“22 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the provisions introduced by this Schedule and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons with twelve months of the passing of this Act.”
That schedule 19 be the Nineteenth schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
The Government are making changes to the tax rules for the hybrid capital instruments that are issued by some companies to raise funds. One of these changes is made by clause 28, which we have already discussed. Taken together with clause 88, it ensures that these instruments are taxed in line with their economic substance, and that the tax rules take account of forthcoming changes in financial sector regulation. The new rules cover issuances by companies in any sector, and replace rules covering regulatory capital instruments issued by banks and insurers.
As I explained when introducing clause 28, some companies raise funds by issuing instruments referred to as hybrid capital, which sit close to the border between debt and equity. This distinction between debt and equity is important for the UK tax system. In particular, coupon payments on instruments that are considered to be debt are typically deductible for tax purposes, whereas dividends paid on equity instruments are normally disallowed. However, determining the correct treatment for hybrid instruments can be problematic by its nature, and this can lead to uncertainty for companies. This is particularly difficult for the financial sector, where banking and insurance companies are required by industry regulators to hold a certain amount of capital. The instruments issued to raise this capital must contain certain features to allow for loss absorbency in the event of financial strain. Existing rules aim to provide certainty of treatment for these instruments issued by banks and insurers.
Clause 88 and schedule 19 make changes to the taxation of hybrid capital instruments, most of which have effect from 1 January 2019. Our overall aim is to ensure that all hybrid capital issued by any company that is in essence debt continues to be treated as debt for tax purposes. In June 2018, the Bank of England finalised its approach to setting a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liability, or MREL. The Bank set out how it will use its powers to require firms to hold a minimum amount of equity and debt with a loss absorbing capacity from 1 January 2019. This will allow the Bank of England to ensure that shareholders and creditors absorb losses in times of financial stress, allowing banks to keep operating without recourse to public funds.
For global, systemically important banks operating in the UK, the MREL requirements take effect from 1 January 2019. Eleven other UK banks and building societies will need to meet these requirements from 1 January 2020. The instruments banks are permitted to issue to meet these new requirements include types of hybrid capital instruments that are not covered by the existing rules. Alongside updating the rules to take account of these new requirements, we have also taken this opportunity to conduct a wider review of hybrid capital instruments. We are providing coupon deductibility for all instruments issued by any company, provided that they are in essence debt, even if they are accounted for as equity. These are also elective, so HMRC will be able to monitor their use closely to ensure that they are not abused. If HMRC detects abuse, we will not hesitate to take whatever action is necessary, including further legislative change, in order to counter it.
Clause 88 and schedule 19 provide for the revocation of the existing rules for hybrid capital instruments issued by banks and insurers. They will be replaced by new rules for hybrid capital instruments issued by any sector. This will provide tax certainty for the issuers and holders of hybrid capital instruments. These instruments are issued by a small number of companies, primarily in the banking, insurance, utilities and telecoms sectors. The new rules apply from 1 January 2019, when existing rules are revoked. However, we have delayed the revocation of certain specific aspects of the rules for instruments issued before that date to allow banks and insurers time to consider the impact of the changes and to restructure their debt, if necessary.
In order to identify whether changes made by this clause and clause 28 were needed, we had to wait until the Bank of England published its MREL rules in June 2018. These new rules apply from 1 January 2019, and meant that changes to our tax rules were needed by the same date. The Finance Bill timetable meant that it was not possible to conduct a full public consultation, but officials consulted advisers who collectively represented those most likely to be impacted by the changes being made by the schedule. Officials also consulted with the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority.
Amendment 158 proposes that we publish a review of the revenue effects of the changes being introduced by this schedule. The policy paper published by HMRC on 29 October 2018 clearly states that the Exchequer impact of changes being introduced by this clause will be negligible. Furthermore, to apply the new tax rules, issuing companies must submit an election in respect of each instrument by September 30 2019, or within six months of issuing a new hybrid capital instrument. That will allow HMRC to closely monitor the use of the rules and ensure they are not being abused. If HMRC detects abuse, it will not hesitate to take whatever action is necessary. I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
I rise to make my final speech to the Committee on clause 88. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I know; it is a shame. The fun must end, but there will always be another Finance Bill.
The clause is enticingly named “Regulatory capital securities and hybrid capital instruments”. As the Minister just told us, it will introduce new tax rules for loan relationships that are hybrid capital instruments. According to the Bill’s explanatory notes, it will also revoke regulations dealing with the taxation of regulatory capital. The clause and schedule refer to the issuance of instruments by companies and financial institutions that contain debt and equity-like features, which, in investment terms, are more commonly known as convertible bonds.
Convertible bonds are having something of a renaissance, as some investors argue that they are well suited to current market conditions, especially the potential rise in interest rates. Practically, a convertible bond pays a fixed coupon, like a debt, but gives the holder the right to exchange the instrument for equity on redemption. In uncertain times for the markets, the appeal is clear: the investor is exposed to a fixed income-type risk in terms of downside, while being able to participate in an equity-like upside. That risk profile has been especially popular in recent years. Subsequently, 2018 has been the year of the highest convertible bond issuance since 2007.
If issuance is on the rise, it is important that investors understand what they are buying and the precise risk profile of how the instruments will perform in different market conditions. It is also important that any tax mismatches are corrected, so the Exchequer is not missing out. That brings us to the substance of the clause.
Hybrid instruments present a taxation challenge, precisely because they change in nature throughout their duration. The distribution of profits would not attract the same tax treatment as interest payments. For financial institutions, that problem was solved by legislation that related to capital requirements—the Taxation of Regulatory Capital Securities Regulations 2013.
Given that the issuance of different hybrid securities was required by a more recent exercise in assessment of loss-absorbing liabilities by the Bank of England in June 2018, the change forms part of a comprehensive review across sectors to remove tax uncertainty. That is timely, given the rising popularity in other sectors of issuing convertible debt, which I referred to earlier. It is important that the Exchequer does not miss out on any revenue as a result of uncertainty. I understand that the Taxation of Regulatory Capital Securities Regulations will be revoked for that reason and replaced by a new taxation policy for hybrid capital instruments, which will be applied across all sectors.
My first question for the Minister is how confident he feels that HMRC and financial taxpayers will have time to comply with the new rules. What consultation has taken place, and what guidance will be made available to those for whom the regulations are changing? The Bank of England’s changes, which demand the issuance of new instruments, will take effect from January 2019. The timeline feels extremely tight from a compliance perspective, if the tax rules are changing only now to accommodate the modification.
We are discussing a comprehensive and detailed set of changes that will affect huge amounts of capital from financial institutions. The technical note published by HMRC on 29 October goes into some depth about the changes, but the Opposition believe that further insight must be given on what feedback and concerns were raised by those who will be affected by the measure. We therefore tabled amendment 156, which would require the Government to make a statement on what consultation there has been on schedule 19.
Amendment 158 goes further by obliging the Government to publish a review of the revenue effects of the measure. According to statistics from Scope Ratings, the European issuance of hybrid bonds from non-financial corporates alone reached more than €10 billion in the first four months of 2018. Together with issuance from financial institutions, we are talking about an enormous source of revenue. We need to understand whether the reforms have been effective.
In connection with that, I ask the Minister to clarify how the stamp duty rules will apply to the measure. The technical note explains that
“The hybrid capital instruments rules provide an exception from all stamp duties on the transfer of these instruments.”
However, it goes on to stipulate conditions under which it might apply. Objectively, it seems that where the instrument is converted to equity, it should be subject to stamp duty, like ordinary shares, but the technical note seems to apply a number of contingencies. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that one way or the other. I call on hon. Members to support the amendments and ensure that we have transparency on a potentially crucial issue of revenue for the Exchequer.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He raised the issue of whether those affected by the measures in the clause will have time to adjust and take on board the new regime. I can assure him that we are confident that is the case, albeit, for the reasons I gave in my opening remarks, we were not able to have a full consultation on these measures given the timing as between consideration of the Finance Bill and the decisions taken by the Bank of England.
Specifically on that point, the Bank held a public consultation on the MREL rules, but the outcome was not published until June 2018. The rules apply from 1 January 2019 and any changes to our tax laws are necessary before then. The Finance Bill timetable means it is not possible to put that out for public consultation on the clause. We consulted on those measures with a number of those who will be affected, so we did what we could in the time available.
As to the hon. Gentleman’s question regarding stamp duty exemptions, those will continue to be in force as under the current regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 19
Taxation of hybrid capital instruments
Amendment proposed: 156, page 315, line 15, schedule 19, at end insert —
“Part 4
Statement on consultation
“22 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a statement on the consultation undertaken on the provisions of this Schedule no later than two months after the passing of this Act.”—(Jonathan Reynolds.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the consultation undertaken on the measures introduced by Schedule 19.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mel Stride
On a point of order, Ms Dorries. I will be very quick; we are now due in another place for yet another round of Treasury stuff. I thank you and your co-Chair, Hansard, the Doorkeepers, our Whips, our Parliamentary Private Secretaries, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, our officials—particularly Liam Mulroy and Calum Boyd in my office—and our Bill team at the Treasury. I also thank everybody on the Committee for having made this such a smooth and productive session.
Peter Dowd
Further to that point of order, Ms Dorries. I thank you and the House staff—the Committee Clerks, the Doorkeepers and Hansard—as well as everybody involved in consideration of the Bill, including my colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Fisheries Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 11th December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 View all Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 December 2018 - (11 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
May I welcome the Committee to line-by-line consideration of the Bill and lay down a couple of parish notices? Most Members have probably sat on such a Committee before. For those who have not, the rules of dress, address and behaviour are identical to those in the main Chamber. Those who have sat under my chairmanship before will know that I tend to the traditional end of that line of thinking—I tend to be quite strict in requiring no coffees, no mobile phone noises, proper means of address, proper behaviour and all that kind of thing.
We addressed this last week, but I remind Members that amendments must usually be tabled by Thursday to be considered the following Tuesday, and by Monday to be considered the following Thursday. However, next week we will sit on Monday, so it will be necessary for Members to table any amendments they wish to be considered then before the rise of the House on Wednesday. That is slightly complicated, but we need to stick closely to it.
The selection list is in front of you and shows how the amendments have been grouped. You will know that the order of consideration of amendments is not necessarily the order in which they will be voted on. They will be voted on as they turn up in the Bill itself. We may allow a stand part debate at the end of the consideration of each clause, or, at my discretion, we may not if we had a reasonably good Second Reading-type debate during consideration of the amendments. We will try to avoid having too many stand part debates, apart from where there is a matter of great principle to be considered. I rely in particular on the Opposition to make it clear when they wish to have a stand part debate. I will be delighted to allow one if that is what you would like.
Clause 1
Fisheries objectives
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, at end insert—
“(A1) Any public authority with any function relating to fishing activities or fisheries management must exercise those functions to achieve or contribute to the achievement of the fisheries objectives.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 36, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Any public authority with functions relating to fisheries activities or fisheries management must have regard to the fisheries objectives in the exercise of those functions.”
This amendment would place a duty on public authorities to have regard to the fisheries objectives in exercising their fisheries functions.
Peter Aldous
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will seek to abide by the house rules you set down.
I have tabled quite a few amendments, so, if I may, I will say a few words of introduction about what is behind them. I represent Lowestoft—it is the largest town in my constituency—which I think we would say was formerly the fishing capital of the southern North sea. It was possible to walk on water from trawler to trawler, from one side of Hamilton dock to the other. That is not the case today; the trawl basin is largely empty. In Lowestoft, we have the worst-case scenario—we have seen how fisheries management can go horribly wrong.
We have rich fisheries off the East Anglian coast that bring very little benefit to East Anglian coastal communities. We do have a producer organisation—it is run from Lowestoft and has accountants in an office overlooking the trawl dock—but no fish are landed in Lowestoft. The trawlers in the Lowestoft PO land fish predominantly in the Netherlands. We are left with a small inshore fleet that lives a hand-to-mouth existence, unsure what quota of fish it will be able to catch from month to month. We might say it lives off the scraps from a rich man’s table.
With that in mind, the Bill needs to address three challenges. It needs to address the lack of fishing opportunities for fishermen such as those whom I represent; ensure we have a sustainable fishing management system; and ensure that we can bring significant benefits to coastal communities such as Lowestoft, many of which feel they have been left behind over the past 40 years.
The Bill provides us with an opportunity to put things right. Taking into account the short time that the Government and officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have had to put the Bill together, we can say that they have done a good job with a lot to be commended. I acknowledge that it is an enabling Bill, and we probably do not want to get involved with or bogged down by a lot of detail. However, over the next two weeks we have the opportunity to scrutinise provisions that will provide the framework within which we can revive coastal communities—not just Lowestoft, but all around the coast of this country.
Let me turn to amendment 78—I am inclined initially to think of Julie Andrews, so I am starting at the very beginning, which is a very good place to start. Clause 1 sets out the fisheries objectives. There is concern that as currently drafted it does not provide a binding legal duty on all public authorities to achieve those objectives, so the amendment seeks to address that concern. It will ensure that the environmental and socio-economic protections that the authorities provide are implemented effectively, and it will help to secure the Government objective of delivering a truly sustainable, world-leading fisheries management system. It is complemented by amendment 80, to which I will speak later in our proceedings. Amendment 78 would impose an obligation on all public authorities. I acknowledge that in drafting terms that may not sit all that well with the Bill, but it raises genuine concerns, and I would welcome the Minister’s feedback on that issue and on how he will best take that concern on board.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I will speak to amendment 36 in addition to amendment 78. It is an honour to speak on behalf of the Opposition, not only as Labour’s shadow fishing Minister, but as an MP who represents a constituency that has nearly 1,000 fishing jobs in both the catching and the processing sectors. The Bill is a missed opportunity, and although we do not oppose it we have tabled a significant number of amendments to improve it and reflect the changes that the industry needs from a new regulatory framework. We seek to ensure that there are enough fish to catch in our ocean, and that the industry is truly sustainable, both economically and, importantly, environmentally.
There is perhaps just one sector of our entire United Kingdom economy that could be better on day one of Brexit—fishing—but only if we can ensure that our fish exports to markets are free of burdensome and expensive customs checks, and free from tariffs. Brexiteers and those behind the 2016 referendum made much of promises to the fishing industry, and Labour’s amendments seek to make real many of the promises that were made during the leave campaign, and since by Ministers, but that are missing from the Bill as drafted. Labour wants to work constructively with the Minister to improve the Bill, and I hope that he does, too.
This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh and create a truly world-leading fisheries policy, and we must not waste that opportunity. There are good things in the Bill that we want to support, but there are far too many missing pieces. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill smacks of something that was pushed out hurriedly to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place in the event of a no-deal hard Brexit.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed the UK Government to leaving the natural environment in a better state than we found it, and rightly so. That is good and welcome, but we need more than soundbites—we need action, and many of our amendments would put such measures into legislation. There are significant concerns about the gap between the Government’s stated ambition, as set out in the White Paper, to deliver world-leading fisheries, and the duties currently in the Bill to deliver that goal. It is critical for the health of our oceans that the Bill includes a duty to deliver sustainability objectives as set out in clause 1. Without such a duty, targets are established but there is no clear obligation on authorities, other than the Secretary of State, to deliver them. There should also be a requirement for annual updates on progress made against those objectives.
Amendment 36 is vital. I am glad that the hon. Member for Waveney tabled a very similar amendment. He and I may sit on opposite sides of the House, but we have both spent a lot of time listening to our fishing communities in our respective constituencies, so we seem to be doing a cross-party tag team on many of our amendments. The purpose of the Opposition amendment is to place a legal duty on any public authority with any fisheries-related function to achieve the objectives set out in the Bill. Without such a duty, objectives are established but there is no clear obligation for authorities to deliver them. The Opposition seek an explicit carry-through of duties, rather than an implied or suggested one, as is currently the case.
We heard last week from Debbie Crockard, senior fisheries policy advocate for the Marine Conservation Society. She said:
“The ambition here is for world-leading sustainable fisheries management. At the moment we do not have a duty in this Fisheries Bill to meet the objectives in the Bill. Those objectives cover a lot of very good things—sustainability and a precautionary approach—but without the duty there is no clear obligation to deliver those objectives. Without that clear obligation you are in a situation where they might not be met and there is no obligation to meet.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 80, Q157.]
Our amendment would make a simple but effective change. We are pleased with many of the words in the objectives, but it is important that we carry those through. I would be grateful if the Minister would say how he will ensure that those objectives are properly implemented and do not just exist on paper in the Bill.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I commend the hon. Members for Waveney and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for tabling these amendments, which deal with an important point. I have a concern about what is described in the briefing we received today from Greener UK as a “fundamental flaw”. The more I think about it, the more I understand that to be the case. The concern is that public bodies currently have to act in accordance with the joint policy statements. That may be good in so far as those statements marry up with the Bill’s objectives, but it leaves rather a lot depending on the content and substance of the statements.
The advantage of the amendments, which are essentially the same in their import, is that they would place a duty on public bodies to have regard to the objectives. Those objectives are good—there is broad consensus that they are exactly the objectives we ought to set in respect of fishing policy. It seems to me that tying public bodies into the objectives, rather than just the policy statements, is a good idea that would strengthen the Bill significantly. I suspect such a provision might have been put in the Bill anyway, had it spent a little longer in the oven of Government.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s thinking. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Waveney intends his amendment as a probing amendment, but Members inevitably will wish to return to this matter, either in Committee or at a later stage.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is a pleasure to start with this very important clause, which sets out our sustainability objectives. I hope I am able to reassure hon. Members that the two amendments are unnecessary because of other provisions in the Bill.
The fisheries administrations are already covered by the joint fisheries statement and, in the case of England, the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement. Clause 2 sets out a clear requirement to publish a joint fisheries statement explaining how we intend to achieve the objectives set out in clause 1. Clause 6(1) contains a requirement that the functions of national authorities must be carried out in accordance with the joint fisheries statement.
One of my issues with amendment 36 is that it uses the words “must have regard to”. I believe that the structure we have put in place—with a joint fisheries statement that explains in great detail how we intend to achieve the objectives, is regularly reviewed, can be updated when circumstances change, and must be followed—is more powerful than saying simply that authorities must have regard to the objectives. We want this to be an obligation that we seek to follow in the best possible way, while recognising the complexity of the marine environment and how things are subject to change.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Is part of the problem, as we heard during the evidence sessions, that other Administrations do not necessarily have to follow what is set down in the joint fisheries or ministerial fisheries statement—they merely need to explain why they departed from it?
George Eustice
That provision is only for a force majeure event such as a major crisis or something that would require an Administration to move outside the plan, and they would have to explain why that had happened. The requirement to follow the joint fisheries statement applies equally to all Administrations in the UK and it is legally binding.
Other public bodies—for example, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities—are already covered by legislation, and those obligations are set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. Section 153 of that Act sets out clear duties for IFCAs to
“seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources is carried out in a sustainable way…seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources…with the need to protect the marine environment from…the effects of such exploitation”,
and finally to take any other steps that are necessary for sustainable development. Obligations for the IFCAs are therefore already covered by the 2009 Act.
Owen Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but I do not really understand what he means by force majeure events. This seems to me to be quite simple. Clause 6(1) states:
“A relevant national authority must exercise its functions…unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.”
I would be grateful to know what “relevant considerations” might mean, because that seems to be fairly broad criteria. Clause 6(4) states simply:
“If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) takes any decision in the exercise of its functions…otherwise than in accordance with the policies contained in an SSFS that are applicable to the authority, the authority must state its reasons”.
The Chair
Order. We might discuss that matter when we consider clause 6, rather than now.
The Chair
Order. The fact that the Minister mentioned clause 6 is not a good reason to question the Chair’s decision on the matter.
George Eustice
I concede that I started this by mentioning clause 6, but I did so in the context of obligations that were to give effect to the measures in clause 1—we will return to that issue in further detail later on.
My third point is that the Environment Agency has a role when it comes to fisheries, and particularly freshwater fisheries—for example, the regulation of salmon. It is covered by separate legislation, and the Environment Act 1995 places a duty on the EA to promote the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland and coastal waters, and land associated with such waters, as well as the conservation of flora and fauna that are dependent on the aquatic environment.
For the reasons we have set out, we believe that the joint fisheries statement and obligations in clause 6 already give effect to the obligations and objectives in clause 1. Public bodies that are not covered by the joint fisheries statement are covered by other legislation, notably the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Environment Agency.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I sense he is coming to the end of his remarks. Will he confirm that the contents of the joint policy statement could be subject to judicial review?
George Eustice
Lots of things in our constitution are subject to judicial review. If a joint fisheries statement were published and there was some doubt as to whether those objectives were being delivered, there is always a basis in our constitution for that to be legally challenged. However, I believe we will be able to work together with all Administrations to ensure that the joint fisheries statement sets out how we intend to deliver our objectives.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about why we chose to do that via a joint fisheries statement, he will know that the marine environment is a very dynamic place where new challenges present themselves. To have a dynamic, detailed plan that is updated periodically and remains relevant, which refocuses us on our objectives and learns lessons from what may or may not have worked, is more powerful than the two amendments would provide.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is being generous with his time. He sets out a process that we hope would be followed in optimum circumstances. In fact, very often that is not the case; other considerations come into play. We have to produce legislation suitable to deal with the worst possible circumstances, not just the base that we hope for. Surely, the advantage of putting this into the objectives, rather than just remaining with the policy statements, would be that those who wanted ensure that the policies meet the objectives would not have resort to that sort of expensive legal procedure.
George Eustice
I simply believe that the approach we have set out, of a joint fisheries statement that can be regularly updated and can express in great detail how we intend to deliver those objectives, is more powerful than a simple addition to the clause. In this Bill we give legal effect, via the joint fisheries statement, for a requirement on Administrations to follow those objectives.
There are occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency, when we have to do annual fisheries negotiations with Norway and the Faroes, and we have to do the coastal states negotiations on issues such as mackerel. Sometimes, countries such as Norway use other scientific measures, although maximum sustainable yield is one of their approaches, too. Sometimes, we have to reach an agreement, and if we are too inflexible in our approach to reaching an agreement with countries in those circumstances, everybody unilaterally sets their own quota and goes their own way, and the marine resource suffers. It is important that our plan has the flexibility to enable us to reach a settlement with our near neighbours such as Norway and the Faroes.
I hope I have been able to persuade hon. Members that the approach we have set out deals with the intention behind the two amendments, and that they will not feel the need to press them.
Peter Aldous
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s points. Although it was important to highlight the issue we need to take into account, I am generally content that the existing provisions, particularly the joint fisheries statement, cover the matter On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 36, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Any public authority with functions relating to fisheries activities or fisheries management must have regard to the fisheries objectives in the exercise of those functions.”—(Luke Pollard.)
This amendment would place a duty on public authorities to have regard to the fisheries objectives in exercising their fisheries functions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) the public asset objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the “public asset” objective, defined in Amendment 38.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 38, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(7A) The ‘public asset objective’ is to manage fisheries, and the rights to exploit those fisheries, as a shared resource and public asset held in stewardship for the public good.”
This amendment defines the “public asset” objectives.
Luke Pollard
Members will see from the amendment paper that the Opposition propose a number of additional objectives, including a new public asset objective, a new marine planning objective, a new safety and workforce objective, and a new climate change and international agreements objective. The first—the public asset objective—would deliver on the pledge in the Government’s White Paper, which states:
“We aim to manage these fisheries—and the wider marine environment—as a shared resource, a public asset held in stewardship for the benefit of all.”
That sounds brilliant, but it should have been included in the Bill.
Listing fish as a public good in the Bill would allow us to say definitively that fish should be allocated for the benefit of the country. I am amazed that Ministers did not set that out clearly in Bill. I encourage the Minister to accept the amendment so there can be no doubt, no obfuscation and no sleight of hand in policy from this Government or any that might follow—particularly in the coming days—that fish is a public good and their benefits should be shared by the nation.
We heard evidence last week from Griffin Carpenter, an economist at the New Economics Foundation. He agreed with that point, stating:
“When I have spoken to stakeholders, even the quota holders, everyone starts from the same premise that fish is a public good, but from my perspective that has not been followed through in the way we treat the opportunity to fish that public good.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 104, Q200.]
The hon. Member for Waveney expressed similar concerns. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House know Aaron Brown from Fishing for Leave, who is a key supporter of the amendment. He said in evidence last week:
“Fish always has been a public resource. Various judicial hearings have defined that as well. Indeed, it probably stretches all the way back into Magna Carta right back through our constitution.”
That is slightly before my time, I am afraid. He continued:
“At the end of the day, we as fishermen, as the members of the public who catch, are only custodians of what is the nation’s; we look after it and husband it well for current generations and future ones. We would very much like to see a clause put in”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 62, Q134.]
Importantly, clause 1 sets the tone for how the Bill will be regarded. There is much discussion about fish in our political debate. It is vital that we make it clear right from the start that fish is a public asset and should be distributed accordingly—a key argument that I believe Members on both sides of the House have advocated. Its omission from the Bill is regrettable, which is why the Opposition seek to insert it as one of the Bill’s early objectives.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We will be happy to support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote. Clearly, clause 1 is all about setting objectives. The Minister may argue that the amendment is superfluous, but we are setting objectives and, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport touched on, we heard clearly in evidence that there is a desire for the Bill to state that fishing is a public good. That would set a marker for the future, when we look at reallocating quotas for the benefit of that public good. We are certainly happy to support the amendment.
George Eustice
I do not believe the amendment is necessary, for reasons that I will set out. I will describe in a moment what we intend to do on quota allocation.
As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport highlighted, case law in this area is very clear. We have an unwritten constitution, elements of which do not need to be put in statute. We do not need to put in statute that Parliament is sovereign. We do not need to put in the Bill that fish live in water. Certain things are facts, not objectives. We do not have an objective to make fish a public asset; it is a statement of fact that they are a public asset, and our common law tradition enshrines that.
The case law is very clear. The UK Association of Fish Producers Organisations brought an important test case in 2013, when my predecessor moved some quota. Mr Justice Cranston, the judge who took the case, noted Magna Carta and what it sets out, and its implications were that fish stocks are a public resources. As he stated:
“Consequently, there can be no property right in fish until they are caught.”
The nature of our unwritten constitution, our common law tradition and our case law make it clear: fish are a public asset. Furthermore, articles 2 and 56 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea recognise that coastal states have sovereign rights over their resources, including fisheries in their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone, and we are signatories to that convention.
I do not believe it necessary, but I wish briefly to explain why in our White Paper we set out clearly that fish are a public asset. As we diverge from relative stability shares and additional fishing opportunities come in, we have been explicit that those new fishing opportunities will not be allocated along current fixed quota allocation lines, and that initially, as a first step, we will allocate the quota differently. We are considering a number of measures. First, we could put additional fish into the under-10-metre pool—the inshore pool—to give extra fishing opportunities to our smaller inshore fleet. Secondly, other parts of the Bill we set out an ability for us to use some of that additional quota to create a national reserve to help manage the landing obligation and deal with the problem of choke species and discards. Thirdly—again, this is set out elsewhere in the Bill—we have outlined the possibility for a producer or organisation to tender for fishing opportunities for a year or a number of years, based on their track record on issues such as creating opportunities for new entrants, their sustainability, the amount of benefit they deliver for coastal communities and so on.
We have been clear that new fishing opportunities will be allocated differently. In the longer term and once we have established alternative methodologies, if we gave sufficient notice—the judgment I mentioned earlier suggested that the Government would need to give seven years’ notice to people who currently hold FQA units—it would be possible gradually to start to move away from the FQA system altogether. We do not want to do that expeditiously, for the reasons set out in our White Paper. Complex business models have been built under the current FQA regime, and people have borrowed money to buy vessels with FQA units attached. As we leave the EU, a lot of changes will already be happening and we do not want to compound them by destabilising the system entirely. We have been clear that we will stick with existing FQA units for existing fishing opportunities, but we will diverge from that over time. To do that, we must simply give notice in a policy statement or document that we intend to do so; it does not need to be placed in the Bill.
Mr Carmichael
Would the insertion of the amendment prevent the Minister from doing that?
George Eustice
It would not, but nothing in the amendment is necessary, and when we draft legislation, it is important to include that which is necessary. Arguably, there would be nothing wrong with a piece of legislation that stated “Parliament is sovereign”, except that that which can be given can be taken away. We have an unwritten constitution and a common law tradition in this country because there are certain things that we do not want to call into question by including them in a Bill. We certainly do not want to downgrade this to a mere objective when it is about a long-established right and a national resource that cannot be turned into a property right, and that is a long-standing point in our constitution.
I understand the thinking behind the amendment and the points raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I hope I have been able to reassure him that is unnecessary and, more important, that I have enlightened him of the Government’s intentions and approach as we move to a new system and regime for allocating quota.
Mr Carmichael
I confess I was not much exercised about this amendment until I heard the Minister’s explanation of why the Committee should not accept it. The Minister says that we do not need to put in the Bill the fact that fish swim in the sea. That is absolutely correct, but that is different from parliamentary sovereignty—the other example he cited. If I dredge the depths of my memory, that is the difference between a praesumptio iuris and a praesumptio iuris et de iure: there are some things that are irrefutable—fish swim in the sea, for example. Parliamentary sovereignty is not necessarily part of nature; it is part of the decisions we take. Jurists have wrestled with that for centuries.
Our own definition of parliamentary sovereignty has changed many times over the years. The whole question of sovereignty is seen differently in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is well established in Scots law that sovereignty is vested in the people and given to Parliament; the Diceyan definition of parliamentary sovereignty is not necessarily accepted. I did not particularly anticipate employing this line of argument, but as the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, the Minister started it.
Mr Carmichael
We are, but if the basis of parliamentary draftsmanship is that the Government will do things only that are necessary, that is quite welcome. However, given the direction of travel of legislation over the 17 years I have been in the House, that would be a fairly normal one and something of a departure from the way we have done things recently.
The Minister brought forward various policy objectives that would sit well in the policy statements at that point, but I do not see anything that contradicts the need for this to be put into the policy objectives. Whereas initially I was of the view that this was not something of greatest moment, now I understand the reasons why the Government resist it I am somewhat more impressed with the idea behind it.
Luke Pollard
I welcome the Minister’s words about allocation of quota. We will come to that in due course. In consideration of the first two amendments, an awful lot of fishers will watch this Committee and will ask why Ministers are resisting fish being a public asset in this Bill. They will ask, “What are they trying to hide or trying not to say?”
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman seeks to downgrade something that is a fact—fish are a national asset—to become a mere objective.
Luke Pollard
For someone who is still quite fresh in Parliament, it is very curious that a downgrade to an objective is better than not having something in the Bill at all. Not mentioning it seems to be the higher state for something—that is not what most fishers will take from this debate.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will know that many fishermen will watch the Committee and note the rather peculiar point made by the Government. Surely, this is a belt-and-braces approach, not a mutually exclusive option to define fish as a public asset. Many small fishermen, particularly those who seem to be crowded out as a result of large-scale private fishing interests dominating the sector, will view the Government’s proposals with cynicism.
Luke Pollard
Fish is a public asset and that should be in the Bill. That is the position of my hon. Friends, and I am disappointed that we have not been able to find a form of words to convince the Minister to be clear that fish is a public asset and should be in the Bill. This is one of the fundamental principles that fishers say to me when I go down to the quayside in Plymouth: they want the Government to come to an honest set of words that says, “Fish is a public asset.”
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman and I need to challenge the assertion that the inclusion of an asset is a downgrade from what was already there in common law. There is no such thing. All it says is that this is a fisheries objective; it does not change the status of public assets or the view of fish being a public asset in the way of jurisprudence.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We need to make that clear, because this is not a Bill that seeks just to refresh and update the regulatory environment around fishing. It is a Bill laced with politics and other meaning, because of the importance of fishing to the Brexit debate. That is why setting a tone for fishing is so important.
The Minister claims that that is not necessary, but it is certainly desirable. We should ensure that the Bill, and all the fishers who will be governed by it, have a sense of the Government’s priorities. Having fishing as a public asset should be high up as one of the key priorities of the Bill and the Government. It is fine to mention it in statements, which we will come to in due course, but being clear that fish is a public asset should be at the front of the Bill, because that is what our fishing communities want it to be. That is why I will not withdraw the amendment but will push it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) the marine planning objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the “marine planning” objective, defined in Amendment 40.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 40, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
‘(7A) The “marine planning objective” is to ensure that any policies are compatible with any marine plans prepared pursuant to Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.”
This amendment defines the “marine planning” objective.
Luke Pollard
The amendments relate to the importance of marine planning in the conservation and exercise of the fishing sector. We have tabled new marine planning objectives and I am grateful for the work of many stakeholders in reinforcing the importance of marine planning, in particular the Blue Marine Foundation.
The UK and devolved Administrations are preparing marine plans under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013. It is important that marine plans are incorporated in the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, and vice versa. It is vital that the Fisheries Bill works in concert and tandem with the existing legislative framework.
The Marine and Coastal Access Act is an important piece of legislation passed in the final years of the Labour Government, as was mentioned by the Minister. It is curious that there is not an automatic read-across from that Act to the provisions in the Bill. The amendment seeks to reflect the importance of marine planning in the Marine and Coastal Access Act in the Fisheries Bill.
We heard in evidence last week from Dr Amy Pryor, who is the programme manager at the Thames Estuary Partnership, chair of the Coastal Partnerships Network and a member of the Coastal Communities Alliance. She said that she would like to see more formal recognition of that in the Bill and perhaps an extra marine planning objective that could set out these matters. The amendment seeks to ask the Minister why marine plans are not mentioned in the Bill and I would be grateful for his response.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman asks why marine plans are not included in the Bill. The answer is really quite simple: the previous Labour Government did all that was required in this space. As he highlighted, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 already sets out our approach to marine management. Specifically, in chapter 4, section 58 (1) requires public bodies to consider marine policy documents in any decision making. Such documents include marine plans and UK marine policy statements.
A number of regional marine spatial plans are under development, and under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, we have a network of marine conservation zones and are building a blue belt around our shores. Many byelaws introduced by IFCAs give effect to the protections required under the marine conservation zones. As with some of the other amendments that the hon. Gentleman tabled, we believe that this is unnecessary, since our approach to marine spatial planning is set down in the Marine and Coastal Access Act. I would also point out that it is not really an objective to have marine planning. It has been a legal requirement since 2009, and those plans have been rolled out. It is already a legal requirement that decision makers and public bodies must follow those plans.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Is the Minister saying that, if we accepted this amendment, we would be duplicating the existing law and therefore creating a significant amount of confusion?
George Eustice
I would make two points. First, it is unnecessary, since we already have legislative requirements that require public bodies to do this. Secondly, in common with the previous amendment, it does not sit easily as an objective. It is not an objective to have a marine plan; it has been a legal requirement for almost a decade. I hope that, given the fact that I have given credit to the Labour party for introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act, which has delivered these things, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not see the need to duplicate that which has already been done.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for his response and for saying more nice words about the previous Government—more of his colleagues should receive that memo. I hope that was not the last mention of it.
The purpose of the amendment was to set out the importance of marine planning in general, and I am grateful to the Minister for doing that. Some good steps are being taken. I welcome the extension of the blue-belt policy. The Minister will know that my colleagues from Plymouth and I have been arguing for the creation of the country’s first national marine park in Plymouth Sound. We also need look internationally, and I hope Ministers hurry up with the designation of the South Sandwich Islands as a marine park. I do not feel that the amendment would duplicate the legislation, as the hon. Member for Nuneaton said, but I am grateful for the Minister’s words, which make it clear to all stakeholders how important marine planning is to our fragile marine environment. As a result, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave that the amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) the safety and workforce objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the ‘safety and workforce’ objective, defined in Amendment 42.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
‘(7A) The “safety and workforce objective” is—
(a) to protect and enhance the safety of workers in fishing activities,
(b) to set and protect minimum standards for wages, terms and conditions of employment in fishing activities,
(c) to prevent modern slavery in fishing activities, and
(d) to ensure the application and enforcement of the national minimum wage by HMRC on fishing vessels within the United Kingdom’s Exclusive Economic Zone.”
This amendment defines the “safety and workforce” objective.
Luke Pollard
Amendments 41 and 42 attempt to use the Bill to make fishing a better and safer place to work for all our fishers. As Jerry Percy said, when we heard evidence last week from the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association,
“Fishing, unfortunately, still carries the record as the most dangerous occupation in the world.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 39, Q67.]
Every day around the world, people who go to sea to catch fish die. We should remember that important fact. Fishing is a dangerous career.
Since I was elected in June last year, two trawlers from Plymouth have sunk and a life has been lost on each of them. To address marine safety, we need a number of things to happen. We need the rules and regulations to be better and more appropriate to the methods of fishing today. We need better enforcement by authorities, and we need better adoption of those standards and best practice by the industry.
Only last week, a report came out on the tragic sinking of the Solstice trawler—one of the boats I mentioned earlier—which sunk in the patch I represent. It is a tragedy that too many fishermen die every year catching our fish suppers. That is a reminder of just how important fishing safety needs to be. I am aware that fisheries safety is a responsibility of the Department for Transport rather than DEFRA, but in setting the tone, requirements and objectives for how fisheries should be governed in future, it would be remiss of us not to discuss the importance of marine safety.
Marine safety is increasingly an issue—in particular for small boats, because of the pressures of the regulatory environment that have led to many of those boats perhaps being slightly less stable than they were originally designed to be. In one of our evidence sessions, I spoke about the development of dumpy boats, which has been a direct consequence of the regulatory environment, which has given rise to an under-10 metre fleet. Instead of having a larger boat that trips over that line, boats have become dumpier. In addition, given the need for small boats, especially, to be able change their gear, there have been concerns about stability.
Alan Brown
Nobody is going to argue about the importance of improving health and safety. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are many risks in the fishing industry. I am just seeking clarification. Having the objective is fine, but how will the objective in itself lead to improvements in health and safety? Regulation and enforcement are required—we need that linkage.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention; it is a good question. The important thing about including this objective is that there would be a requirement for Ministers in their annual statements to report on progress on marine safety. As we have seen, sadly there has not been sufficient progress. Given that responsibility for marine safety is shared between a great number of stakeholders in government, it is important to have an opportunity to bring all those efforts together and share best practice. Having a clear objective that the regulatory environment we want to create around fisheries after Brexit is one where marine safety is prioritised is a key message that we should be sending to the fishing community.
The Minister will know of a brilliant scheme from Plymouth that provides lifejackets personal locator beacons to fishermen with. That is an example of how we can make real our proposed objective, if implemented. Personal locator beacons activate when they come into contact with water, enabling the search to be taken out of search and rescue. I have seen for myself the registry and met the team at Falmouth coastguard who manage this system: it is a good one that we need to roll out more comprehensively.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
As I recall, the Government considered it important that such health and safety provisions apply to vessels coming into our waters post-Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that that makes it doubly important that we include these issues in the Bill?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is important that we set high levels of safety standards for all fishing boats in UK waters, whether they are UK or foreign-registered. The highest safety standards, including wearing lifejackets with personal locator beacons, should be something that we demand. I would like to see every fisher in UK waters wear a lifejacket with a personal locator beacon. I want to stress the feedback from families of fishers who have been lost at sea. Wearing a lifejacket with a PLB might keep someone alive if the boat sinks or they go overboard, but if the worst happens and that life is lost, the PLB means there is a body for the family to bury or cremate. It is important that we recognise that feedback from families. There seems to be universal agreement that PLBs attached to lifejackets are a good thing, but we know that there is a cost to fishermen of buying new lifejackets with PLBs and registering them. That is why we have tabled the amendment, to make it clear in the Bill that marine safety is important.
Our amendment also deals with the subject of modern slavery. As well as enhancing safety standards, the amendment would address the minimum wage and tackle the issue of modern slavery, which unfortunately can persist far out at sea. Only last year in December, nine African and Asian crew members working on a pair of British scallop trawlers were taken to a place of safety by police as suspected victims of modern slavery. The men were alleged to have worked unlimited hours at sea with very little rest. That is why it important, when we deal with marine safety, that we recognise the pernicious behaviour of those people who are engaged in modern slavery. We need to ensure that has no place in the UK fishing industry, by including it in the Bill. The Prime Minister herself has championed the case against modern slavery. I am certain that if the Prime Minister, who does not seem to have much going on today, were serving on the Committee, she would vote in favour of the amendment, to support action against modern slavery and ensure not only that our fishing industry is as safe as such a dangerous pursuit can be, but that there can be no examples of modern slavery in it.
Mr Carmichael
Like many Members of this House, I am often wary about using legislation to send signals, because most of the time I do not think it necessarily ends well. However, from my experience personally and as a constituency MP, I think the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would send a very important signal, so I commend him for tabling it.
One of my formative experiences in the area came when I was still in legal practice. I was instructed to appear at a fatal accident inquiry at Lerwick Sheriff Court on behalf of a family from Banff, or perhaps Macduff, whose son had been swept overboard from a trawler, the Alandale, which is no longer at sea. In a force 7 or force 8 gale, the young man had gone over to the ledge around the side of the boat to fix a trawl door. The boat was hit by a big wave—a lump of water—and he was washed away. The skipper said that the crew saw a flash of orange oilskin in the water, but that was the last they saw of him. They looked for him for some time, but the search was ultimately futile.
When I was instructed in that case, the grief of the young man’s parents formed my view, which I hold to this day, that the matter requires our attention and every possible signal needs to be given. The other thing that struck me during the fatal accident inquiry was the evidence of the other deckhand, who was still in his late teenage years. He said that for a few weeks after the incident, he had worn a life vest of some sort; when asked on cross-examination why he had stopped wearing it, he said that he had been subject to ridicule from others in the industry. Nobody of that age, and nobody who had witnessed what that young man had witnessed, should be subject to such pressure. I have noticed that the situation has improved since, but there is still a lot to do. I still hold the view that there is a job of education to be done within the industry, and making it an objective of the Bill would be a significant improvement.
Locator beacons are another matter that I have formed a view on over the years as a consequence of my experience of dealing with families. One constituent, with whom I worked for some years, had a brother working on a single-handed creel boat who was caught in a rope—we think—when shooting his creels and went over the side of the boat, which was on automatic pilot. The boat was eventually found a considerable distance from where the family thought he had been fishing. A locator beacon would not have saved his life, but it would have saved his family immense pain and grief to know sooner where he was. It is a relatively small and inexpensive innovation, but it highlights the importance of putting safety objectives in the Bill.
Finally, let me make a point about modern slavery. The modern slavery that we have identified in the fishing industry has generally been a consequence of the operation of transit visas in relation to crews of non-European economic area nationals. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has heard me speak about that in the House times without number. It is a ridiculous use for transit visas and the Government should get real and identify the need for non-EEA nationals to be employed in the industry, and make a sectoral provision about it.
If the objective were included in the Bill, arguably the Home Office’s current approach to visas for non-EEA nationals would be in breach of it. For that and other reasons, the proposed change to the Bill is eminently sensible and supportable.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right. Any of us who represent fishing communities know the devastation that can be caused when a boat is lost. Indeed, just at the start of this year in my constituency, the Nancy Glen sank off Loch Fyne with the loss of Duncan MacDougall and Przemek Krawczyk. The devastation felt is something I never want to see again. Anything that improves safety on board has to be supported.
I question the amendment in relation to wages and salary protection, but the SNP supports the principle. The Scottish Government—notably Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary—have written to industry stakeholders along those lines and spoken to the Government and officials about regularising the visa situation to ensure that non-EEA workers are subject to UK employment law. We are keen to get full implementation of ILO 188, the International Labour Organisation work in fishing convention. We have concerns that the wording of the amendment means it would not apply to the many fishermen who are self-employed, or to the significant proportion of the industry who are share fishermen, to whom such things as the national minimum wage do not apply. We need to ensure that anything in the licence works in tandem with existing law and check the exact implications of the amendment.
It is complex, so although we agree with the spirit of the amendment, particularly about safety on board, we must ensure that we get things right. If the amendment is pressed to a vote we shall support it but, if the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport does not press it, we will have an opportunity to work on a proposal covering more of the industry. We could work on that together and perhaps bring it back on Report.
George Eustice
This issue is obviously incredibly important. Fisheries and fishing are one of the most dangerous occupations. Every year we have a fisheries debate—we have one tomorrow. Tragically, we always have to reflect on those who have lost their lives to put food on our tables. I know that there has been a tragedy linked to the constituency of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, with the loss of the Solstice and a crew member. The report was published recently and the hon. Gentleman has had a lot of dealings with the family.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised an important point and told a rather depressing story about a young man who was wearing a personal flotation device for his safety and was ridiculed. That underlines an important issue. We need to try to get a culture change—a change in attitude in some sectors of the fleet—so that safety is given more prominence.
I want to return later to a couple of issues raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which are covered elsewhere in the Bill, about how we define under-10s. There are also other issues about monitoring of smaller vessels. However, first it is important to recognise that safety, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, is first and foremost a matter for the Department for Transport. I think I am right in saying that he, along with me and many in the industry, attended a meeting organised by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who has responsibility for shipping. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, she takes this very seriously. We got fisheries stakeholders together specifically to discuss what more can be done to promote safety. He highlighted important schemes, including the use of personal location devices. Quite a lot of progress has been made, too, on personal flotation devices, which are discreet and do not get in the way of fishermen’s manual work but inflate when they come in contact with water.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for those words. It is especially important that we look at marine safety in relation to fishing, because although marine safety is spread across different aspects of Government, in many cases the unintended consequences of fishing regulation have an impact on fishing operations and fishermen’s lives, so it is right that we consider it.
When we consider what can be done to improve safety standards in fishing, it is also right that we consider the differing distribution methods to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks—he talked about the distribution of any additional quota drawn down from our EU friends. That level of detail is not highlighted in the Bill, but the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport who has responsibility for shipping have great concerns about it, as do I.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the under-10 definition, which is unhelpful across the board. I recognise that a lot of homework still needs to be done to find a better definition. Measuring engine size and hold size are two potential options. However, in the fishing area of DEFRA-land in the bigger sense, unintended consequences can have the most profound effects. We need to be cognisant of safety implications in respect of regulations in the Bill and in the Minister’s secondary powers, even if safety responsibilities sit with the Department for Transport.
The Minister is right to talk about IVMS, which will be a positive development as long as the technology concerns can be addressed. It is certainly an improvement on the behaviour that we see around the automatic identification system, which fishers sometimes turn off when they find fish. I would be grateful if the Minister could maintain his focus on marine safety and continue the discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I am seeing her tomorrow to continue those conversations on the Solstice incident.
On the basis that we will revisit marine safety in our consideration of later amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) The climate change and international agreements objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the ‘climate change and international agreements’ objective, defined in Amendment 44.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 44, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(7A) The climate change and international agreements objective is to ensure that fisheries policy aims to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom‘s obligations under—
(a) the United Nations Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
(b) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
(c) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
(d) the Convention on the Law of the Sea,
(e) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
(f) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”
This amendment defines the “climate change and international agreements” objective.
Luke Pollard
The amendments, which aim to update the objectives at the front of the Bill, refer to climate change. It is important that we talk about climate change in the context of fisheries. Climate change is a challenge facing every single sector of the UK economy, but the impacts of climate change are being felt in fishing communities in respect of the availability and location of the fish stocks that our fishers are trying to catch.
At a time of global uncertainty, we could not let the omission of the phrase “climate change” from the Bill slip by. We know from the evidence we heard last week that climate change is affecting fishing, be that through the availability of food stocks for fish, through the changes in spawning and breeding grounds, or through different migration patterns, which affect where fishers go to catch fish. Climate change is real and it affects fishing, as it does every other economic sector, so it warrants a mention both in the Bill and in DEFRA’s serious considerations and actions.
If Labour had been in government and we were introducing this Bill, I imagine that we would be doing it ever so slightly differently from how the Minister is doing it. The amendment is key in addressing climate change and reinforcing sustainability.
I am grateful for the words of the Secretary of State on not rolling back environmental protections. It is important that those words are met with actions, including in the Bill. In addition to talking about climate change, we talk about the international agreements objective, which lists the other international agreements that have a bearing on fishing, and in particular on the conservation and environmental aspects of fishing—if we overfish, there will not be enough fish in our seas to sustain a fishing industry. We need fisheries that are sustainable both economically and environmentally. The amendment seeks to make a reference in the Bill to the other international agreements.
Alan Brown
Perish the thought that I am starting to think like a Conservative. However, although those are laudable conventions by which we need to abide, is not the key issue that, as a signatory to the treaties, the UK has to fulfil those obligations anyway? Therefore, it is superfluous having them in the Bill, regardless of the signals that would be sent by the amendment.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that, because it brings us on to maximum sustainable yield, which is one of our rationales for talking about this. The UK is committed to achieving maximum sustainable yield by 2020—that commitment is in a variety of international treaties and agreements. That target is hard to achieve, according to the feedback we have had from stakeholders and to some of the evidence we heard last week. That is why, in creating a new regulatory environment for fishing, we need to have due regard to the commitments the UK has signed up to elsewhere across our international conventions—MSY by 2020 is one such commitment. It is mentioned elsewhere but not in the Bill, which is why the Opposition seek to raise awareness of not only the importance of climate change to our fisheries but our international obligations and commitments as a nation. I would be grateful therefore if the Minister could expand on the Government commitments given elsewhere to sustainability, and on how they will be reflected not only in the Bill but in its implementation.
George Eustice
As discussed under the previous amendment, climate change is obviously incredibly important. As the hon. Gentleman points out, we have some fantastic marine science laboratories, including in his constituency, that study the long-term effects of climate change, and its impact on, for instance, the availability of plankton and, in turn, our fisheries food chain. DEFRA is therefore responsible for mitigating the effects of climate change. However, the amendment, in common with a number of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, is not necessary, for reasons I will explain.
I feel that, as a Conservative Minister, I am paying too much tribute to legislation introduced by the last Labour Government, but—I am sure this will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s attention—they introduced the Climate Change Act 2008, which set out clear targets in a range of sectors, including marine and shipping. The 2008 Act is the cornerstone of the approach of this Government and this country to tackling the effects of climate change. Although managing a reduction in carbon emissions is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—energy sits within its remit—DEFRA is responsible under the Act for climate change mitigation. We produce regular reports to update both the House and the country at large on our approach.
I will make a couple of points on the other international agreements. The UK is a signatory to those various conventions and agreements and is therefore bound by them under international law. We do not need to state that in the Bill.
I also point out that the hon. Gentleman’s list is a partial one, omitting a number of important international conventions to which we are a signatory. The problem with placing on statute a partial list is that it casts doubt over our commitment to the other agreements. If we are to do a list, we must at least include them all but, in any event, we believe that a list is unnecessary. However, I will just point out some of the other important international agreements and conventions to which we are a signatory and which are not currently covered. There is the UN fish stocks agreement, which sits alongside the UN convention on the law of the sea, and the Oslo-Paris agreement, which is the cornerstone of our international agreements dealing with challenges such as marine litter and marine pollution more widely.
Luke Pollard
Given all the Minister’s praise for the good done by the last Labour Government, I am amazed at his temerity for even wanting to stand against them at the 2010 election.
George Eustice
It would go well beyond the scope of the Bill, but I could give many reasons why I did not stand for Labour.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for stating that he remains a Conservative.
When considering this type of legislation, it is important that we raise the volume on climate change. Labour’s genuine concern is that, since the abolition of the Department for Energy and Climate Change, the political priority and the volume of the debate on climate change has been much reduced. It is not spoken about as frequently and it needs to be.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out our international obligations and for spending so much time talking about how it is in our country’s interest to pool our sovereignty and to work with our international partners where there are common interests. I am also grateful to him for expanding on the list of international obligations that the UK has signed up to and that we need to continue to be involved in to ensure that our waters are properly managed.
I beg leave to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, after “marine” insert “and aquatic”
This amendment would add the avoidance of the degradation of the aquatic environment to the definition of the “ecosystem objective”.
The amendment is about the ecosystem and aquatic environment around our fisheries. The aim is to tidy up a part of the Bill that is inconsistent across the board by enhancing the ecosystems objective and ensuring that it includes the avoidance of degradation of the aquatic environment.
Hon. Members who have had the fortune of sitting in Westminster Hall with me will know of my passion for protecting our marine archaeology, and shipwrecks in particular. I talk a lot about shipwrecks and the importance of creating a wrecks at risk register to ensure that we understand what those pieces of marine heritage are and better protect what lies under the sea. I am pleased that clause 40 refers to
“features of archaeological or historic interest”
in the definition of marine and aquatic environment, as it means that every time there is reference to the marine environment, heritage should be included automatically. That is a useful inclusion, consistent with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 in respect of the responsibilities of inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. However, the definition and scope of the marine and aquatic environment is not taken up consistently in the rest of the Bill, which is a missed opportunity.
The matter should be dealt with consistently. It seems odd, given the power of the Secretary of State and devolved Ministers to make provisions for a conservation purpose which includes the marine and aquatic environment, that this is not mentioned as an element of the fisheries objectives or within the scope of the fisheries statement. Will the Minister confirm where we are in relation to the aquatic environment, as well as the marine environment?
George Eustice
First, I will explain the effect of expanding the provision to include the aquatic environment. The hon. Gentleman has defined it as covering heritage assets on the sea bed, notably shipwrecks, and I will return to that, but first let me say that referring to the aquatic environment as well as the marine environment would also cover all our inland waters, so all of our freshwater bodies.
We already have a regulatory framework for the management of freshwater fisheries, and the Environment Agency is the government agency that leads on the aquatic freshwater environment. Relevant pieces of legislation include the water framework directive—obviously an EU directive, but all the domestic provisions put in place under the water framework directive will come across as part of retained EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—and the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, which governs in particular waters in so far as they affect salmon conservation. There is also the Water Resources Act 1991 and, as I mentioned earlier, the Environment Act 1995. We therefore have a comprehensive suite of existing legislation pertaining to the freshwater environment.
Returning to the separate issue of heritage assets such as shipwrecks, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, the famous Marine and Coastal Access Act established a licensing regime for people exploring shipwrecks, for example. He may know of the frequent controversies, with divers complaining that some of that licensing regime is too onerous and that it affects their ability to remove ghost nets or litter from shipwrecks, for example, without a licence. There is therefore a comprehensive—some say onerous—licensing regime in place to protect shipwrecks. In addition to the licensing regime for the marine management organisation established under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, we also have the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, which allows the Secretary of State to protect wrecks in territorial waters and sites of such wrecks.
We have comprehensive legislation that covers the issue of the aquatic freshwater environment and the protection of heritage assets such as shipwrecks. Therefore, an expansion of the ecosystem objective to cover heritage assets in the way outlined by him is unnecessary in the light of the other legislation that we have in place.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. It is important that when we are looking at our marine environment, we look at not only the fish in it but at aspects of human history. When we get to talking more broadly in this place about the wrecks at risk register, I hope we have a new ally. Given what the Minister has said, I do not wish to press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
“(c) to ensure that fishing activities are managed in a manner that contributes to the achievement of good environmental status as set out in Article 1 of Directive 2008/56/EC and is consistent with all other international and domestic environmental legislation.”
The amendment would add to the ecosystem objective. Taking account of the fact that fishing can have significant implications for the health of the wider marine environment, it would impose a duty to deliver fisheries management in a way that is coherent with other relevant environmental legislation. It would also set ecosystem management in an international context, ensuring that we adhere to international environmental legislation. In many respects, the amendment can be viewed as providing belt and braces—perhaps even duplication—but ecosystems around the world are interconnected and it is important that we recognise that. I tabled the amendment to seek assurance and confirmation from the Minister that the Government are thinking globally and are aware of their international obligations and duties.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend highlights the marine strategy framework directive, which sets out the commitment to good environmental status. It is important to recognise that we are already legally bound to deliver that commitment to good environmental status, because the directive has already been put into our domestic law through the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010. We already have those on our statute book.
My hon. Friend will be aware that we are bringing across all retained EU law, including objectives of this sort, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We have been clear that we do not intend to have regression in our approach to environmental protection, although once we are free of the European Union there will be things that we can do better and more effectively. We can tailor legislation that works to deliver some of these objectives better than we can as a member of the EU, where legal requirements do not always achieve the desired outcome as effectively as they could.
On my hon. Friend’s wider point about working internationally, we have been absolutely clear that we are leaving the European Union because we want to make our own laws again, but in doing so we intend to reassert ourselves on many international conventions, where we have, frankly, lost our voice. We find ourselves in an extraordinary situation in many of the regional fisheries management organisations and in important conventions, such as the convention on international trade in endangered species and the convention on biological diversity, where, even though we are a signatory, we are not allowed to speak as an independent country.
The supposed duty of loyal co-operation means that we must always vote the way the EU tells us to vote. This leads to situations, for instance on the International Whaling Commission, where the UK would often wish to go further than the European Union is willing to and we are forced to follow an EU line. In the final days of the last Labour Administration, the then Secretary of State ordered officials to vote for a more restrictive measure to protect bluefin tuna under CITES regulations. The EU started infraction proceedings against the UK as a result of us exercising that decision to try to protect bluefin tuna. Infraction was only avoided by the then Labour Government giving an apology and saying that they would not do such a thing again.
Since the Lisbon treaty in particular, the UK’s voice on the international stage has been undermined. As we leave the EU we will take our own independent seat on regional fisheries management organisations and other important conventions, and I believe that we will have more influence. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that we are not by any means retreating from the world. Indeed, as we leave the European Union and become an independent country again, we will be able to have our own independent voice on these critical international organisations, where we are well placed to lead.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance and confirmation that the UK is very much aware of its environmental responsibilities and is thinking globally. He is right to be adopting that approach. I will highlight two issues. The UK overseas territories might be small in land mass, but many sit in enormous oceans. We also have, in my own constituency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is an arm of DEFRA. Over the last few years, CEFAS has been very successful in winning work all around the globe. It is very important. We have a great opportunity. It is something that the British people feel very strongly about as well.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. CEFAS is the world’s pre-eminent fisheries science agency and its views are sought after around the world. Dr Carl O’Brien, the lead scientist at CEFAS, spoke in the evidence session. It does a lot of work in the middle east, in countries such as Kuwait, as my hon. Friend will be aware.
Peter Aldous
I am pleased that the Minister has given me the assurance that I was seeking about the Government’s aspirations and ambitions. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(aa) to facilitate generation of accurate real-time scientific data from both research and all fishing vessels.”
This amendment would add the generation of accurate real-time scientific data to the definition of the “scientific evidence objective”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 24, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) to ensure full documentation of catches.”
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the UK achieves full documentation of catches to give a true picture of what is being removed from the sea and in order to provide accurate scientific data to ensure effective management of the shared stocks in UK waters.
Luke Pollard
We want to strengthen the objectives to enhance the requirement for data collection. The UK’s seas have historically been an abundant source of food, income and employment, but at the moment they are failing to meet their full potential. Two thirds of UK stocks have been fished beyond their sustainable limits, but according to the New Economics Foundation, if catches followed scientific advice, the yield could deliver 45% higher landings and additional gross value added of approximately £150 million across the UK coast, and would support an additional 2,500 full-time equivalent jobs.
The UK’s fisheries are not being managed at their optimum economic output. Government figures show that two thirds of our main commercial fish stocks are depleted, overfished or at risk of being depleted, or their status is unknown. Only one third are currently operating at maximum sustainable yield. There was a vague reference to improving data in the White Paper, but that is also no longer in the Bill.
Labour would like to create a road map to take us to fully recorded UK fisheries over time. That makes economic sense. Sustain recently found that UK fisheries are losing out on millions of pounds of business from the catering sector in the UK alone, as buyers look abroad for sustainable fish instead of buying from the UK from fisheries that are not currently classed as sustainable. The market for sustainable seafood is growing 10 times faster than that for conventional seafood. The best markets within and outside the EU require fish products to be demonstrably sustainable, including a number of markets within the UK public sector. That includes our schools, prisons, central Government, Whitehall catering and the NHS. At present, a large amount of fish caught in the UK is not verifiably sustainable, and that is affecting access to those markets within the UK.
We heard a lot about data deficiency during the evidence sessions, and is one of the main reasons that much of the fish caught in UK waters cannot be marketed as sustainable. For fishing to be sustainable, there must be sufficient understanding of the population of the targeted species, the impact of fishing, and the status of our sea-floor ecosystems. Without that data, boats can be considered ineligible for Marine Stewardship Council certification or receive a lower rating from the Marine Conservation Society’s “Good Fish Guide”.
In January this year, the Environment Secretary said that
“we can still do more to improve the procurement of British food across the public sector.”
He was right, but there is no mention of that here. If data deficiency is one of the things holding back the sector, we believe that it should be addressed in the Bill. According to Government data, the status of three of the UK’s 15 main fish stocks is unknown. That would not be acceptable on a farm or in agriculture, and we should stop accepting it simply because it is underwater.
I am grateful that this topic is taken up in a similar amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I would be grateful if the Minister told us how the current data deficiency can be remedied.
Brendan O'Hara
Although these are all good aspirations, and we recognise the need to continually improve our data and the need to contribute to better science, we have concerns about some of the practical aspects. For example, who will pay for the very costly technological change that is proposed? I also question whether primary legislation is really the place for determining such scientific measures.
I caution that some of the technological measures are still in their infancy or, in some cases, not yet possible. For example, as I understand it the knowledge around identification and sizing of catches has only just been developed in terms of camera technology.
Finally, is it not for the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to determine how to collect data, and indeed what data is to be collected? I fear that the amendments might inadvertently cut across that devolution settlement.
Mr Carmichael
To pick up on that last point, my amendment is probing, albeit with a serious purpose at its root. Essentially, the problem is that for years we have had conflict between what fishermen believe is in the sea and what scientists say is in the sea on the basis of the data that they have. The data that would be produced by the full documentation of catches—which is an important principle, whichever jurisdiction we are dealing with—would be the best possible evidence. It would be in the interests of the industry, and it would certainly be in the interests of the scientific community as a whole.
For years, I have complained about the fact that the source of the conflict between the industry and the scientists is that much of the data collected is almost two years old by the time it is used for the purposes of decision making. We know the situation in the marine environment can change massively over that time. As a consequence, we have a mismatch between the scientific evidence and what fishermen believe is in the sea.
What we propose would allow for a much earlier “quick and dirty” analysis of what is in the sea, and would offer the opportunity of different fisheries management systems. At the moment, given the way in which we use science, I would be very cautious about the idea of moving to anything like a real-time closure, for example. The science, of course, is always evolving and improving, but this is not a novel process; this approach is taken in a number of other fishing jurisdictions. If reliable data is coming from the industry itself, the objectives of real-time fisheries management will be much more easily achieved.
Amendment 24, which stands in my name, is probing, but it strikes at the heart of the approach that the Government will be taking, especially in later parts of the Bill, which deal with the practical ways in which fisheries management is to be undertaken. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, for example, is keen to see the creation of advisory councils.
George Eustice
I will begin by setting out what is required now, what regulations we will have as a starting point, and some of the things that the Government are already doing in this area. First and foremost, the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 will incorporate all existing EU rules on data collection on to our domestic statute book. A significant amount of data is already collected: for instance, vessels over 10 metres in length are required to provide logbook data, which includes details of fishing activities, the catch, the type of fishing gear used, and the area where the fish were caught. Landing declarations are required, with information on the weight and representation of fish, and sales notes on the first sales of fish are also required. There is a comprehensive system of data collection, right from the point of catching and where those fish were caught, through to sales.
We have taken some steps in the past year to begin to improve data collection on the inshore fleet. Traditionally and currently, the under-10-metre fleet has been required to provide only sales notes. We have said that from next year, we will introduce a requirement for IVMS on inshore vessels, so we will know where those vessels are catching their fish. We will also introduce catch reporting as part of a step towards a new settlement with the under-10s: we intend to give them more quota but, in return, have a better understanding of how they are fishing and what they are catching. I believe that through those steps, by extending some of those provisions to the under-10-metre fleet, we will improve the documentation of where fish are caught and how they are caught.
The amendments are unnecessary, because they attempt to dip a toe into the type of detail that would be covered, in my view comprehensively, through the joint fisheries statement. Under that statement, we would have to demonstrate how we are delivering on that scientific objective. That is inevitably going to include how we are funding fisheries science, what the priority species are to move from a data-limited assessment to a full MSY assessment, what the challenges are, and what other issues we need to address. The matters that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport seeks to cover in the scientific evidence objective should be picked up in much greater detail in the joint fisheries statement.
On the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who has lots of fishermen in his constituency, as long as I have been in post, I have been told that the scientists are always out of date and do not know where the fish are anyway, so they send survey vessels to the wrong place. I have looked at the issue in depth. We use a range of data, as Dr Carl O'Brien pointed out. We look, in real time, at landings data and the size of the fish being caught. There is the Endeavour—the survey vessel that CEFAS operates out of Lowestoft, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—which goes to the same grounds every year to sample fish. There is an important reason for that: although the fish might move, there has to be a consistent yardstick to assess the same area; otherwise the control and the ability to monitor trends are lost.
That is not the only data that the scientists use. They use landings data and the survey vessel that goes to the same locations, but they also place observers on fishing vessels with the fishermen who say, “We know where the fish are and CEFAS don’t,” so we are monitoring that as well. We will never perfect the science, but the algorithms and models that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea uses to predict stock trends factor in that some of the data may be a little dated. A constant refrain of fisherman is that the science is out of data and the scientists are in the wrong place anyway but, although we will never get it perfectly right, we do everything that we can to mitigate the types of effects that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland described.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister actually makes the case for moving towards full documentation of catches very well.
George Eustice
As I explained earlier, we already have full documentation of catches on the over-10s, and next year we will introduce full documentation of catches for the inshore fleet. A linked issue is so-called remote electronic monitoring, which is basically cameras on vessels. Other parts of the Bill give us the power to require cameras on vessels, which could improve our abilities on enforcement and data collection.
We have the ability now, which we will retain in future through provisions in later clauses, to make real-time expeditious changes where required. We have had, for instance, issues with spurdog bycatch in parts of the west country. We had a successful spurdog bycatch avoidance programme, which was put together expeditiously in partnership between CEFAS and the industry in the west country, to assist fishermen to avoid those bycatches or to help them deal with them when they have been unable to avoid them.
I hope that I have reassured the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of our progress in that area and of our commitment to science. The joint fisheries statement will cover those issues in greater detail.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out measures to address the data deficiency. To realise the aspiration of my party and, I hope, of the Government to have the most sustainable fisheries in the world, it is important that we match that with a commitment to having the best data in the world. Although we already have the world’s best fisheries science, fishers and stakeholders are concerned that there is insufficient coverage of that best science across every single fish stock, so I am grateful to the Minister for setting out how that can be enhanced.
We must send a loud and clear message that we need better data and baseline stock assessments. That needs to be done in conjunction, collaboration and co-operation with the fishing industry, rather than science being done to fishers, which is often their view. The more we can do in a collaborative way, the better. In the light of the Minister’s remarks and as the Committee will discuss data later on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, after “area” insert
“, fishing opportunity, or entitlement for any resources”
These amendments would extend the definition of the “equal access objective” to cover equal access to fishing opportunities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
Amendment 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(c) individual measures introduced by—
(i) the Marine Management Organisation
(ii) the Scottish Ministers,
(iii) the Welsh Ministers, or
(iv) the Northern Ireland department.”
To ensure that any measures introduced by a ‘relevant national authority’ do not impact on the equal access objective.
Luke Pollard
I can deal with this quickly. The amendment relates to adding fishing opportunities or entitlement to the provision that is already in clause 1(7), so there can be no get-out-of-jail card. Fishers expressed concerns about ensuring that we have as robust a set of criteria as possible for foreign boats having access to UK waters. In the amendment, we ask the Minister to ensure that the clause and the criteria are as robust as they can be.
Mr Carmichael
Amendment 30, which stands in my name, is probing. I confess that its genesis is in briefings from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. I eventually tabled it because, on balance, it is an important issue that needs to be teased out. The amendment may not be the ideal way of doing it, because the enforceability of the duties of the other Administrations—Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers and Governments—is questionable, but the thinking behind it is important.
Essentially, given the devolved nature of fisheries and the fact that we will have the objective of equal access, we have to find a way around the conflict between the different systems that will be put in place in the different jurisdictions. If opportunities for fishing are to be taken up in England by boats from Scotland, or vice versa, or in Northern Ireland by boats from the west of Scotland, or vice versa, we need to find a way to ensure that the regulation is as accessible as possible.
Devolution is a good and worthy objective, which my party has supported for many years, but it can occasionally trigger the law of unintended consequences. If we do not manage the different systems in good faith, the people who have to comply with or enforce the regulations may be left in a difficult position. That is the issue that we seek to bring to the Minister’s attention by way of the amendment. I will not press it to a vote, but I am interested to know how exactly he envisages that will work in everyday, or every year, fisheries management considerations.
George Eustice
To address the amendments, I probably need to explain how quota flows through the various systems at the moment from the point at which it is created internationally. Both amendments stumble into the thorny area of our devolved settlement, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.
As an overarching point, we have sought to achieve through the Bill a system that enables us to manage our fisheries domestically in a way that respects the devolution settlement that has been established. To be honest, we sometimes have particular challenges in fisheries, because on one level they are about international agreements with other countries, which are a reserved UK competence, but on another level many elements of fisheries management have been devolved. In some areas, it has been challenging to put together arrangements that ensure that we have a UK framework, where it is needed, in a way that respects the devolution settlement, but I believe the Bill achieves that.
Let me explain how quota is created. First, we have an international fisheries negotiation between the UK and the EU, or the UK and a third country in the future, where, species by species, a total allowable catch and an allocation to the UK of that TAC are agreed. The UK Government then allocate that quota—our share of the TAC—to the devolved Administrations, currently following FQA units attached to the vessels where they are registered. That means we give Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales an allocation of quota. How they allocate that within their fleet is then a devolved competence.
A few years ago, the Scottish Government did a consultation on moving away from the FQA unit approach and allocating quota in a different way. Although they ultimately stepped back from that, it is a devolved responsibility for them to decide how to allocate that bit of the quota that the UK Government have allocated to them. The difficulty with both amendments is that they cross a line in terms of the devolution settlements, because they start to fetter the ability of the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Administration or the Welsh Government to allocate their own quota in the way they see fit.
We intend to pick up these sorts of issues through the joint fisheries statement. Indeed, we already wrestle with these challenges and we have a concordat and memorandums of understanding to manage these issues. Sometimes we have some tension between Scotland and other Administrations over where vessels are registered and where they are fishing, which can lead to disputes that we have to resolve. Due to the nature of our devolved settlement, the one thing we have become used to in fisheries is finding a way through the concordats, the memorandums of understanding or, in future, the joint fisheries statement. The challenge that both amendments alight on is not new; indeed, we have wrestled with it for some time. The solution to the problem lies in the joint fisheries statement that will set out common understandings in the way we approach these particular issues.
While I recognise that both amendments highlight an important issue, the issue goes wider than the Bill because it goes right to the heart of the devolution settlement. One thing we resolved not to do with this Bill is to attempt to rewrite or overturn the devolution settlement. In the absence of that, the joint fisheries statement is our solution to some of the problems the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has highlighted.
Luke Pollard
I am more than happy to, Mr Gray. As a Janner, speaking slowly is not something I am accustomed to doing, but I will try my best.
When considering these amendments, it is important to look at how devolution and access to water can be well managed through the Bill. We know that we have problems relating to equal access, both in internal jurisdictions within the United Kingdom and with our friends from the EU and Norway. Any access must be properly managed and properly understood. This concern is often raised by fishers in Plymouth, who sense that the rule of equal access is not currently being obeyed or applied with the same level of effort and energy as it should. That refers in particular to when there are restrictions or a closure in a UK six to 12 miles area that affects UK fishers but not necessarily others. The Minister talks about the importance of having a level playing field between all those different bits.
George Eustice
Obviously, there will be licence conditions on all foreign vessels fishing in British waters in future. Technical measures of that sort would be a requirement on those seeking access to our waters.
Luke Pollard
I think both amendments in the group are probing, designed to get confirmation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
May I say what a great pleasure it has been chairing the Committee this morning? I look forward to chairing this afternoon, when we meet again at 2 pm. What a very well mannered and intelligent debate we have been lucky to have heard so far. It is funny how long a minute takes when you are watching the clock. Order.
Fisheries Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 11th December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 View all Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 December 2018 - (11 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(10) The fisheries policy authorities mush publish, on at least an annual basis, an update on progress made against the fisheries objectives.”
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of this Act, a ‘UK fisheries statement’ is a statement made jointly by the fisheries policy authorities on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
(3B) The first UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of the previous statement being published.”
This amendment would add a requirement on the fisheries policy authorities to publish a joint “UK fisheries statement” within 12 months of the section being brought into force
Amendment 49, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must annually lay a statement before Parliament on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
(3B) The first such statement under subsection (3A) must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of this section coming into force.”
This amendment would add a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual statement on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
Peter Aldous
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
Amendment 80 would add the proposed words to clause 1 and it should be read in conjunction with amendment 78. It provides for the fisheries policy authorities to publish, at least annually, an update on the progress that they have made towards securing the fisheries objectives. It would give the objectives true meaning and day-to-day relevance, rather than their being somewhat abstract from reality.
From the viewpoint of accountability and transparency, which in so many respects are missing from the current opaque fisheries management regime, it is important that this amendment should be considered. It would help to deliver a truly sustainable and world-leading system of fisheries management.
I tabled the amendment because I want to hear from the Minister what he plans to do to address these particular concerns.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your chairmanship. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment sits in conjunction with amendments 48 and 49, which I tabled, in making sure that we would have an annual report from Ministers on progress. Given this morning’s debates, it is really important that there should be an annual opportunity for the scrutiny of Ministers in relation to this issue.
Currently there is a very unsatisfactory situation, as hon. Members need to scramble away and persuade colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee to have an annual fisheries debate in Westminster Hall. Indeed, we have one tomorrow, but I suspect that it will not attract the attention it should, because it is not in the main Chamber. The ability to have that annual presentation of reports by the Secretary of State and a good debate, with all Members of the House able to contribute, is a really important part of this amendment—in effect, that is what we seek. It also relates to when such a debate must take place.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
As I recall, the expert witness from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was talking positively but incrementally about the movement towards opening out quotas, although that will take some time. Does my hon. Friend agree that such debates would help to monitor the situation?
Luke Pollard
I agree with my hon. Friend. When we are looking at such potentially seismic changes as doing away with the fixed quota allocation system and reallocating quota on a larger basis, it is important to have an annual opportunity in the parliamentary calendar for the Government to present the evidence, statistics and science behind where fisheries stocks are, along with progress towards any reallocation.
The other part of amendment 48 relates to the statement being published annually. There is confusion about when precisely the UK will exit the European Union and under what arrangements, but the amendment states in proposed new subsection (3B) that there would be a fisheries statement within 12 months of the provision coming into force. Effectively, whenever we left the European Union, be that in the fashion planned by the current Prime Minister or in a way not planned by her, within 12 months there would be a statement and we would have an opportunity to update and see progress against the fisheries objectives we debated this morning.
[James Gray in the Chair]
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
All the amendments seek a statutory requirement for the Government to publish an annual statement, updating the House and others on progress towards the fisheries objectives, but we already have a number of plans that mean we do not need to place a statement on a statutory footing. The White Paper commits us to an annual statement on our assessment of the state of stocks that are of interest to the UK and of our approach to setting fishing rates and other management measures.
Fisheries negotiations take place annually, which is why we have an annual fisheries debate. Next week is December Council, at which fishing opportunities for next year will be discussed. We have just been through the various coastal states, and the EU-Norway negotiations are concluding as I speak. To inform our approach to annual negotiations, we will inevitably feed data into organisations such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas—ICES—and publish both the data we have on progress on the state of fish stocks and our approach to doing that, so we do not need to place this on a statutory footing.
If something more formal were to be done, if it were judged that there needed to be more formal oversight of our progress towards the objectives, the right place to do that would be in the forthcoming environment Bill, which will establish an independent environmental body to monitor our progress towards the objectives set out in the 25-year environment plan. In relation to a more strategic approach to the delivery of the objectives and the plan, that is the right place to consider such an oversight role. We have in the Bill a statutory requirement for a joint fisheries statement and for a Secretary of State fisheries statement setting out our approach to delivering the objectives.
Finally, it is important to recognise what we already do. Every year, before we go to December Council we lay before the House a written ministerial statement that sets out our approach to the negotiations and the agenda for them, and we always lay a written ministerial statement after the negotiations have concluded, to update the House on progress.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I appreciate that we have other Bills coming and that there are other ways in which the reports may be obtained, but we have this Bill before the House at the moment, and it is this Bill that establishes the objectives and then the policy statements. Surely the mechanism for accountability should be within the Bill also, if it is to be meaningful.
George Eustice
The method for accountability is indeed in the Bill. There is a statutory requirement to publish a joint fisheries statement and for all the Administrations to pursue that statement to deliver those environmental outcomes and the fisheries objectives set out in clause 1. The issue here is whether it is necessary to place on a statutory footing the idea of publishing an annual statement. My contention is that there is no need, since we already have annual debates.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made an important point: there is a strong case for saying that, in the new world we are going into as we leave, rather than having that debate brought by the Backbench Business Committee, there should be a debate in Government time at the point the negotiations take place. I would certainly be willing to have conversations with colleagues in other Departments ahead of consideration on Report to see whether we could give such an undertaking.
We have already made a clear commitment in the White Paper to publish an annual statement of the state of the stocks. I do not believe it is necessary to put that on a statutory footing.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister find it troubling that despite the fact that the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 has required DEFRA to carry out triennial reviews of the Marine Management Organisation since 2009, only one has taken place so far? Is he concerned that similar failings might accrue with respect to the Bill?
George Eustice
We regularly do triennial reviews. I do not think that the triennial reviews stem from the 2009 Act. I think there was a requirement to review the MMO after four or five years, and my recollection is that that did indeed take place.
My point is that it is not necessary for every report we might publish to be put into statute. I made the point in debating an earlier Bill that DEFRA produces many reports. Every June my box is inundated with annual reports of one sort or another. Some of them are required by statute. The vast majority are not, but we publish them anyway, as it is a means of being transparent with the public. Since we have given an undertaking in the White Paper, I do not believe any of the amendments is necessary. However, as I have said, I undertake to have conversations before Report with Government colleagues, to see whether we can give a more formal undertaking on the idea of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about a more formal debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, rather than in Westminster Hall.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister will remember, as I do, the days when the annual fisheries debate was held in Government time. When the Backbench Business Committee was introduced, it seemed logical that those general debates would go into Backbench Business time. The Government have now taken that on a step. It is not impossible that one day we may have a Government with sufficient authority and a sufficient majority to see a full and comprehensive programme of legislation through the House, in which case it is eminently foreseeable that the time available for a debate of the kind we are discussing will be squeezed out again. I suggest that that is why there is some force to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.
George Eustice
In DEFRA we have brought in more Bills—more significant pieces of legislation—in the past 12 months than at any time in recent history. Parliament is currently considering an Agriculture Bill that is the first such major piece of legislation since 1947. Of course, the Fisheries Bill will give us control of our waters for the first time in more than 40 years. So, at DEFRA at least, we are making good progress in getting through some critical legislation.
I hope that I have reassured both my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that while it is indeed our clearly stated intention to publish an annual statement of the state of stocks, it is unnecessary to make it a statutory requirement in the Bill.
Peter Aldous
I have listened with interest to the Minister’s reply. I do not necessarily want to overburden the Bill—it is, as he says, an enabling framework Bill—with unnecessary rules and regulations. However, one of this Parliament’s best pieces of legislation was the Climate Change Act 2008, and that contains an obligation to report annually to the House. I hear what he says about the emerging environment Bill. I confess that I have not considered every step of that emerging Bill, and I am aware that certain organisations feel that we need to join up better the management of the marine environment and the land-based environment. On balance, being kind to the Minister, I will not press my amendment to a vote at this stage, but I will bear in mind his undertaking to look at this matter more fully on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
We have had a comprehensive discussion about clause 1 through the consideration of a series of amendments. The key purpose of the clause is to set out our fisheries objectives, which are largely taken from the existing objectives in the common fisheries policy. The clause also commits us to all those objectives and includes descriptions of them. I do not intend to dwell on the clause any further, since, as I said, we have spent the past few hours discussing each of those objectives in great depth.
Luke Pollard
The Opposition will not vote against clause 1. However, I invite the Minister to reflect on some of the changes to the objectives that have been discussed. I also invite him to look at whether amendments can be introduced in the other place, especially in relation to fish being a public asset and marine safety. I think there was widespread agreement on that on both sides of the House, even if there was not necessarily agreement on the wording.
Mr Carmichael
Among those who gave evidence to the Committee last week, a common recurring theme was that there was something of a disparity between the vision that was laid out in the White Paper, which the Liberal Democrats broadly welcomed, and the rather narrower vision that was left in the Bill. It is also fair to say that we would have hoped to find in clause 1 a number of aspects of the White Paper’s vision. It is disappointing that we have not made more progress. I have been around this place long enough to know how these things work, so I am not necessarily very surprised, but it is fair to put the Minister on notice that the Liberal Democrats will wish to return to certain issues in relation to clause 1 when the Bill goes back to the Floor of the House. Failing that, I am fairly certain that my noble Friends at the other end of the building will also have thoughts on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Fisheries statements
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert
“and their policies for distribution of fishing opportunities.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 88, in clause 2, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“(j) distributing fishing opportunities.”
Peter Aldous
These two amendments seek to obtain clarification on what one might describe as the elephant in the room in current fisheries management—that is, the fair distribution of fishing opportunities. The current situation is one of haves and have-nots, and we have heard that what is now known as the under-10-metre sector falls into the have-nots. The Bill provides no clear forum for the four nations of the UK to discuss and consider appropriate methods of distributing fishing opportunities to their fishing vessels, and that needs to be better co-ordinated and more coherent. These amendments would require the pursuit of a detailed, decided and considered approach to the distribution of fishing opportunities, and I would welcome clarification on the approach that the Minister is pursuing in order to address this issue.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman’s amendments are worthy of decent consideration, because the distribution and redistribution of fishing opportunities plays a key part in what we are discussing today. It is therefore worth spending a few moments reflecting on what has been said. The amendments are brief, in terms of the number of words, but substantial in their potential impact.
More transparency about how quota is allocated to our fishing fleet would be welcome, because the allocation causes much distress among fishers. Some want more, and some do not have any at all. We would support transparency, but we would like to go further. We have tabled amendments, which we will come to later in our consideration, that would ensure that future and existing allocations of quota were distributed under social, environmental and economic criteria. There was much talk on Second Reading and in the evidence sessions about the unfair imbalances of quota between large and small fleets, and the amendments would improve transparency and accountability in how those quotas are given out.
Even under the common fisheries policy, the Minister has the power to reallocate quota, so it is important that we understand the approach taken to allocating quota annually, whichever party is in power. An often-cited critique of the European Union is that the size of the pie, in terms of quota, has been restricted. The debate needs also to focus on where that pie is shared out—how it is distributed between large and small boats and different fisheries—and its economic contribution to the UK.
The fixed quota allocation system, which was heavily criticised for being unfair at the outset, has not really been updated since the 1990s. Indeed, in the evidence session last week, the hon. Member for Waveney made a strong case as to why there is an opportunity for understanding how quota is allocated. As a result of the existing system of ownership, fishing quota has become increasingly consolidated among large-scale interests. Griffin Carpenter from the New Economics Foundation said:
“In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised. Every year, quota is allocated to the same holders”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 102, Q196.]
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. The opportunity to redistribute quota could have a beneficial effect on coastal communities across the country, from the west country to other parts of the UK. That is effectively what Griffin was saying in his remarks about understanding how quota has been allocated, and it is why the amendment is so important. It would help us better to understand the basis on which quota is allocated, particularly as a quarter of the UK’s fishing quota is owned or controlled by just five families on The Sunday Times rich list.
The small-scale fleet has generally been excluded from the FQA system and producer organisations. Quotas should be allocated on transparent social, economic and environmental criteria to the benefit of fishing communities and coastal communities. We heard that in our evidence sessions, and the idea enjoys support from both sides of the Committee, although we are yet to find a form of words on which we can agree. A greater share could be offered for complying with relevant regulations, such as taking part in data gathering, fully monitoring and recording catches, complying with discard rules and applying high standards of workers’ rights, welfare and marine safety. Through that, we have an opportunity to allocate quota in a fairer way that supports greater public goals and assets. Those are objectives that we all share.
There may be more fish after the UK leaves the common fisheries policy if we get a drawdown of the quota held by our EU friends, but not amending the distribution of quota would exacerbate existing levels of inequality between parts of the sector and would fail to incentivise best practice. Small boats provide the backbone of our fishing fleet and make up the majority of the fleet, in terms of employment. They generally use low-impact gear and provide more jobs per tonne, but their share of quota has been limited to 4% to 6% of the total available quota, even though they employ 49% of the fleet. A greater understanding of how that can go, how quota is currently allocated and how it will be allocated in future will help transparency and, importantly, confidence among fishers in the system.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is right about the evidence and discussions about how future quota should be allocated. The benefits need to be considered. Does he accept that the amendment could impact on the devolution settlements, because quota allocation is devolved to the respective Administrations?
Luke Pollard
It is really important that we are part of the devolution debate, to ensure that where powers have been devolved to a devolved Administration, they can take decisions on how to distribute their quota accordingly. Quota drawn down from our EU friends is additional quota, which can, in theory, be shared across all UK fishers across the four home nations. An under- standing of how that is allocated is an important function of transparency and part of how we make the system work.
George Eustice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for introducing these amendments. He has been a long-standing campaigner for a fairer deal for our inshore under-10 metre sector in his constituency. I want to set out what we have done to try to give more fishing opportunities to the under-10 sector, what we intend to do and set out in our White Paper, and finally address the specifics of his two amendments.
First, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), introduced something called fixed quota allocation permanent realignment, where he took unused quotas from the producer organisations and effectively drew it back into the pool. That led to the legal challenge that I referred to earlier, which the Government won. We therefore secured that fixed quota realignment of unutilised quota from producer organisations.
Secondly, when the discard ban was introduced and the landing obligation came in under the new common fisheries policy, I took a policy decision in 2014 that the first 100 tonnes of any additional quota through the discard uplift would be top-sliced and given to the under-10 pool to boost the number of fishing opportunities they had. Even if they have more haddock than they could possibly catch, we could nevertheless give the pool the quota and the currency it needed to swap in fish that it could select. These two measures together have given a significant uplift in the baseline quota that the under-10 metre sector have.
We have set out clearly our approach to the future in our White Paper. As we diverge from relative stability and have additional inward quota transfers, we will not allocate that quota just by divvying it out along existing FQA lines. While existing fishing opportunities for the time being will remain on an FQA system to provide stability, we intend to allocate any new quota with a different method. As I made clear this morning, one option we are looking at closely is whether an early priority should be to give additional fishing opportunities to the under-10 meter pool in advance, and over and above that which we have already done, as we gain additional quota and diverge from relative stability. I think I have demonstrated in the last few years my commitment to give more fishing opportunities to the under-10 metre pool, as did my predecessor.
Amendment 87 seeks to add a requirement to set out objectives for the distribution of fishing opportunities in the joint fisheries statement. In this clause, I think stumbles in a devolved issue, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said. As I said earlier, although the UK Government have the power to allocate a quota to the devolved Administrations, it is for each devolved Administration to decide how it allocates quota to its own fleet and to the fleet registered in its Administration.
The proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney in amendment 88 raises an interesting point. I have looked at clause 2(2), which sets out the existing scope of the Secretary of State fisheries statement. Subsection (2)(e) talks about
“contributing to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic factors”.
Subsection (2)(h) talks about
“promoting coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio-economic factors”.
Should at least one of those options that links the socio-economics of fishing communities make explicit reference to the distribution of fishing opportunities? I hope he will take a steer from me that it is my intention to have conversations with other Government colleagues and Departments and, on Report, seek to suggest an amendment to one or other of the existing factors outlined in subsection (2) that could make a more explicit reference—I think it is currently implicit—to fishing opportunities.
On that basis, and with such a concession, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I hear what he says about amendment 87 and the fact that, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, it stumbles into devolution issues. However, I am grateful for the Minister’s undertaking to look at clause 88 in more detail with a view to coming back with more information addressing my concerns on Report. On that basis, I do not wish to push the amendment to a vote.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 2, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“(j) promoting the development of fishing and aquaculture activities that conserve, enhance or restore the marine and aquatic environment.”
This amendment would add promoting activities to conserve, enhance or restore the marine and aquatic environment to the policies to be included in the fisheries statements.
Amendment 50 seeks to continue the discussion we had this morning on aquatic environments and the preservation of marine heritage on the seabed. Recognising the conversation we had earlier, I suspect the Minister may not be minded to support the amendment. However, it is worth spending a moment on the “marine aquatic environment” wording to ensure that it is consistent throughout the Bill. The concern is that the wording is inconsistent with, for instance, clause 31(2)(b). The amendment would ensure consistent application on the same basis in promoting the development of fishing and aquiculture activities that conserve, enhance or restore the marine and aquatic environment.
The Minister spoke earlier about the importance of protecting the marine environment and I am grateful for his words. We recognise that the fishing industry has played an important part over many years in discovering much of the marine heritage that has been snagged in its nets or gear and brought to the attention of archaeologists. Some of the UK’s most significant marine heritage assets have been discovered by fishermen. The important part of this measure is recognising that, although fishermen undoubtedly seek to avoid snagging their gear on underwater heritage assets because of the hazards and costs involved, impacts that cause damage to underwater heritage sometimes still occur. The stakeholders that we spoke to in advance of the Bill are keen that the relationship between those marine heritage assets and the fishing industry is understood in the Bill.
There are two elements. The Minister touched on the heritage aspect earlier when we discussed a similar amendment. The application of the consistent wording of marine and aquatic environment is also worth looking at.
George Eustice
We covered a lot of the substance of this in an earlier group of amendments. However, in clause 2(2)(c), we already have measures to adjust the fishing capacity of fleets to levels of fishing opportunity consistent with the precautionary objective. The need to fish sustainably and to control fishing so that it is sustainable is therefore covered. Delivering the precautionary objective is effectively to conserve and enhance the fish in our waters. Subsection (2)(d) promotes the development of sustainable aquaculture activities. The use of the words “sustainable aquaculture” picks up all that is needed in managing our approach to aquaculture.
The final bit, which is new, is a repeat of a discussion we had this morning regarding whether the wording should be “marine and aquatic environment”. As I said this morning, this is a Fisheries Bill about the marine environment and marine fisheries. We have a suite of separate legislation that deals with our fresh waterways. For instance, the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 cover in detail the approach the Environment Agency should take to deliver good environmental conditions in the freshwater environment. We have the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and a licencing regime established through the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 that provides protection for heritage and shipwrecks and the like. The addition of “aquatic” is not appropriate for the reasons outlined this morning, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that fishing sustainably and having a sustainable approach to aquaculture are already dealt with in paragraphs (2)(c) and (d).
Luke Pollard
There is an element of ensuring consistency. The phrase “aquatic environment” is used in the later parts of the Bill under clause 31, so there is a consistency problem. I take note of what the Minister has said and, as a result, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of this Act, a “UK fisheries statement” is a statement made jointly by the fisheries policy authorities on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
(3B) The first UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of the previous statement being published.”—(Luke Pollard.)
This amendment would add a requirement on the fisheries policy authorities to publish a joint “UK fisheries statement” within 12 months of the section being brought into force.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 2, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(e) the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries.”
To set the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries at an equal level to Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland department.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
Amendment 16, in clause 9, page 6, line 9, at end insert—
“(e) the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries.”
To require the Secretary of State to secure the consent of the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries regarding any amendments concerning licensing of boats in England.
Peter Aldous
The intent behind these amendments applies also to amendments 17, 18 and 19, and new clause 8. I would be inclined to describe this as the West Lothian question set to fishing. In principle, there is a lot to commend evolution in a fishing context. We are getting towards that regional, more local system of management, which a lot of people felt was one of the problems with the common fisheries policy. There is a concern that the English are being left behind and that we are not on equal footing with the other three nations of the United Kingdom. The amendments are tabled in the spirit of seeking to extract from the Minister a more appropriate and consistent political accountability for English fisheries. There may not be a problem immediately but I sense we might be storing one up further down the line.
There is a concern that the arrangements in the Bill concerning what is known as each “relevant national authority” are asymmetrical to the exclusion of the representative voice for English fisheries. There is a worry that the political representation for English fisheries is inconsistent and, at times, lacking political accountability. When the Bill refers to the national authorities, the arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are consistent. Those authorities are the Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Office. However, in the case of England, the arrangements are inconsistent. In some cases, the Marine Management Organisation is identified as the national authority; in other cases, the Secretary of State is identified as the fisheries policy authority.
Mr Sweeney
It is an honour, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The hon. Member for Waveney puts forward a clear and cogent case. It is something that needs to be looked at carefully in the context of the sustainability of our current constitutional arrangements. The key frustration for a lot of us, particularly the generation who have grown up under devolution, is the lopsided and asymmetrical nature of our structures.
It certainly causes frustration in this place for Scottish MPs when we have to deal with structures and policies that are not geared up for or reflective of devolution, and that are not considerate of those issues. It is time to bear in mind and take cognisance of those issues, in order to look at a new architecture for our legislative framework in the UK that reflects the reality of the past 20 years of devolution.
Mr Carmichael
I confess that I did not anticipate, when we started scrutiny of the Fisheries Bill, that issues of such high constitutional importance would feature so prominently in the debate. One never knows how Committees will proceed.
The hon. Member for Waveney makes a good point. The current constitutional architecture remains unfinished. The unfinished business is the position of England, and whether it is England as a whole or the constituent parts of England is a debate that, frankly, people in England need to have. I wish them as much joy as we have had with that in Scotland for the past 30 years.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment comes to the crux of the matter. As matters are currently ordered, the Secretary of State has a clear conflict of interest. On the one hand, he is expected to act as the UK Minister, holding the ring, as it were, between the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and at the same time he is supposed to be the English Minister. That is not a sustainable situation. It requires to be remedied and should be remedied, I suggest, through a more comprehensive and holistic approach to constitutional reform for our English cousins. It is also fair to say that this is not a situation that can last indefinitely. If we have to go through another round of salami slicing, taking it subject by subject, instead of region or nation by region or nation, then so be it, but clearly something has to change.
Luke Pollard
The amendment goes to the heart of many of the gripes about fisheries regulation in England. Who speaks for English fishing? There is an inherent conflict in the roles of the Fisheries Minister and the Secretary of State holding both English and UK-wide portfolios. Although it is tempting to engage in a debate about the emerging need for a federal settlement in the United Kingdom, that is probably a decision above our pay grades for the purposes of the Fisheries Bill.
However, the hon. Member for Waveney’s suggestion to look at where this will go is not necessarily a bad one. We have the opportunity to reset and reformulate fishing regulation and to start the journey on those bits that will take longer. The Minister has said that re-allocating FQA will take seven years, if that were to start straightaway. We recognise that some of the changes that the Bill is seeking to effect will not come into immediate force on the day that the Bill comes into force. The discussion that we need to have about the more devolved nature of fisheries is part of that.
If I may go further than the hon. Gentleman, there has also been talk about devolution within England. For instance, there is the potential with more empowered inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and greater powers at a local level, to have a more thorough set of powers regionalised and localised, rather than just held in Westminster with an English Minister. This is therefore a good debate to have. I am not certain that the amendment will carry favour, but the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concern.
On the question of who speaks for English fishing, I am sure the Minister will say that, currently, he does. That is something that we need to delve into, though it is probably a discussion for another day.
George Eustice
As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed out, this may be a variant of the famous West Lothian question. Perhaps we could dub it the Waveney question, as he has raised it. It is an interesting point, but as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, it goes much wider than what we will be able to resolve in this particular Bill.
In this country we have a devolved settlement; we do not have a federal system of government. The reason that a federal system of government would not work in the UK is that England is so much bigger than the other component parts. Under any kind of qualified majority vote we would still, effectively, have the dominance of England. It is because such a federal system would not work in reality, given the structure of the UK—unless we were to break up England, as the previous Government intended to do through a series of regional assemblies—that we need to make our devolution settlement work.
Devolution means that, ultimately, something is either devolved—in which case it is for the devolved Administrations to lead on—or it is reserved, in which case it is for the UK Government to lead on. Where there is a need for co-ordination and frameworks, it happens through a series of memorandums of understanding, concordats and other such arrangements, which feature prominently in this Bill and have always been prominent in our approach to fisheries.
The amendment would have no legal effect as it stands, because the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries is indeed the Secretary of State, so they are one and the same. For a Minister with responsibility for English fisheries to be able to do anything other than what the Secretary of State wanted, he would need to have an English Government who were separate from the UK Government; and if we had an English Government who were separate from the UK Government, we would need an English Parliament to hold that English Government to account. I do not think that that is an approach that we want to take at the moment, for all the reasons I have outlined.
Mr Carmichael
Can the Minister reconcile the objections that he has just outlined with the Government’s attitude to English votes for English laws?
George Eustice
I can, because that is an absolutely sensible compromise to ensure that only English MPs should vote on those pieces of legislation that affect only English matters. I believe that that is not about having an English Government, but a procedure in our Parliament to ensure that English MPs vote on laws that affect their constituents.
There is another issue. I might say, what about Cornwall? Cornwall is slightly different, as you will know. The Fisheries Minister at the moment represents a Cornish seat, but there are representations from organisations such as Cornwall Council that seek to have more of a formal role for Cornwall in decision making. That links to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, that there may be a more formal role for the IFCAs, which could draw them into the consultations that we have ahead of the annual fisheries discussions. At the moment, we have meetings with both environmental and fishing stakeholders, and engage closely with them in the lead-up, but it may be that we should have a process for involving the IFCAs in part of that discussion. That may be one way to address the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned that parts of the Bill say “the Secretary of State” and others “the Marine Management Organisation”. This clause, which is about putting together a policy statement, clearly relates to the Secretary of State. The term marine management organisation tends to be used, in most clauses, in the context of its enforcement and licensing roles. Parts of the Bill use the term marine management organisation because of the powers it has under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to manage licences and to carry out enforcement activities.
My hon. Friend raises an important point, but it goes well beyond the scope of the Bill. I would say this: in my time doing this job, I have never actually had any difficulty reconciling the role that I play as UK Minister in international negotiations, arguing the case for the UK, and the role that I play as an English Fisheries Minister, making decisions around the distribution of quota, technical measures to protect buried lobsters and a whole host of other things, which I agree for England only. It does not cause me any conflict. There are potential inconsistencies, as he highlighted, but I believe they are inherent in the devolved settlement that we have; over the last 20 years, we have learned to manage those effectively.
Peter Aldous
I accept that the Bill is not the right place to take account of these concerns, but it is important to air them, and that is what I have done. I sense that there might be a problem further down the line. I hope that I have fired a warning shot that that might be a problem and that we need to be awake to that, and to address it.
In the Fisheries Bill, we are setting out the new UK fishing policy—the UKFP—which will replace the CFP, in which we had the EU. I am not saying the EU is necessarily an umpire or an adjudicator, but it is another party, and it will be removed from future discussions. I suggest that the Secretary of State’s role could well come under closer scrutiny, and I sense that this issue could materialise as a problem sooner rather than later. On that note, although it is important that we have aired the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Preparation and coming into effect of fisheries statements
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 3, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a system to resolve disputes between fisheries policy authorities that result in no joint fisheries statement being published.
(6) In establishing the system under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must in particular ensure that the dispute resolution system makes provision to require the fisheries policy authorities to make use of the system if it appears that no JFS will be published by 1 January 2021 due to disputes between the fisheries policy authorities.”.
This amendment would provide for the Secretary of State to establish a system for resolving a dispute between the fisheries policy authorities which could otherwise result in no joint fisheries statement being published.
Amendment 51 seeks to establish a dispute resolution mechanism, should there not be agreement between the partners on a joint fisheries statement. This week is a perfect example of how dispute resolution mechanisms are actually quite useful and should be put in place before the dispute that needs to be resolved has arisen, and that is what the amendment seeks to do.
Of course, we hope that all fisheries policy authorities representing each part of the UK will be able to agree their joint fisheries statement without problems or roadblocks emerging in the discussions—the parties involved may even go into those discussions fully intending to reach agreement as swiftly as possible—but we know that in real life these things can sometimes turn out rather differently to what everyone intended.
The amendment, which has been suggested by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Blue Marine Foundation, therefore seeks to discover what the Government think should happen in the event that reaching an agreement on the joint fisheries statement proves to be a more difficult and protracted process than expected, or in the event that one or more of the authorities wishes to have fishing opportunities distributed on a very different basis to the others, where there is a conflict between that distribution method and the methods of their neighbours.
We need to bear it in mind that in many cases the stock of fish will be passing between shared waters and around our islands. In that respect, what happens in one jurisdiction has an impact on what happens in another jurisdiction. Therefore, the amendment seeks to place duties—
Alan Brown
Will the hon. Gentleman outline how he sees this system being set up and how it will actually operate, because right now the amendment is structured so that the Secretary of State sets the system up, which clearly indicates that there will be no input from the devolved Administrations into how the system will operate? He highlighted the example of a situation where one Administration might want to allocate in a way that is vastly different from the other Administrations, but the Secretary of State might have too much control through the way they have set it up. Is that not a risk with regard to the devolution settlement?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. In this amendment, we have not attempted to prescribe exactly how the dispute resolution should operate nor how it should be established; we have merely said that there should be one. Given that the powers flow from this Bill into the hands of the Secretary of State, it seemed logical that the Secretary of State—whoever that may be—should have the initial responsibility of establishing that mechanism, obviously in conjunction with the other parties involved.
We feel that a firm deadline should be set in the Bill so that these matters are not allowed simply to drift. Therefore, the amendment proposes that the fisheries authority should be required to use the system set out by the Secretary of State in regulations, as soon as it becomes apparent that it will not be possible to have an agreed fisheries statement published by—in this case—1 January 2021. Equally, the date could be set 12 months after the commencement of the Act.
The Minister may try to persuade us that we are perhaps being too gloomy and that the scenarios that we are trying to prepare for are remote possibilities. If he is not inclined to accept this amendment, as I suspect he may not be, it would be beneficial if the Minister explained to the Committee what plans he expects to be put in place if there is a situation where the fisheries authorities are unable to reach an agreement, and that in itself causes a—
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Further to that point, the Minister said previously that he would be, in effect, the English Fisheries Minister and the Secretary of State. Does the hon. Gentleman have concerns that the English Fisheries Minister is also the arbiter in such a scheme? How would that work out? Would there not be a complete conflict of interests if we were to put the Minister in that situation?
Luke Pollard
The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a valid one, and it relates to the difficulty of having a UK role and English role simultaneously. The importance of creating a dispute resolution system ahead of any dispute happening is that the rules of engagement are already set out if those conflicts and the issues that may arise from people being double-hatted come about. That assumes that the English Fisheries Minister is indeed an English MP and there is not a Welsh or Scottish MP in that role, because that would create opportunities for other types of conflict within that scenario.
We need to get that settled from the outset and that is effectively what the amendment seeks to do. The amendment says, “In the event of there being a problem, how will it be addressed?” It would be good if the Minister set out his Department’s thinking. If there is a scenario in which conflict happens, we need to be clear about how it will be resolved, because fisheries is a very political issue. We know from the Fisheries Councils that there is an awful lot of national bravado, national posturing and national importance in respect of the deal, and the agreement that emerges is a really important one. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out how he would address that in responding to the amendment.
Mr Carmichael
We used to say that strong fences make for good neighbours, and the same is true when applied to the principles of constitutional law. The effective working of an emerging asymmetric system of devolution within our government requires strong systems to be put in place. Yes, as the Minister suggested this morning, it is all fine and well while everybody is happy, stocks are plentiful and there is no real disagreement. One of the difficulties with the operation of the devolution settlement between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom was that such concordats as were put in place were put in place with little consideration of how they might work with Governments of different colours in Edinburgh and London. As a consequence, these areas have become fractious, and occasionally friction has ensued. We risk missing an opportunity, because there will be times when some sort of friction will occur.
To anticipate the question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, such arrangements would have to be put in place after full agreement with the different devolved Administrations. It would be wrong of the UK Government—because they are the UK Government and the English Government at the same time—simply to go ahead. That is the essence of the conflict the Minister faces.
No one should have a veto in these matters, but that should mean that no one has a final say in defiance of everyone else either. A veto can block an arrangement, but a final say can force through an arrangement that does not suit and is not agreed by everyone in the different Administrations concerned. At the end of the day, we may need to come to something that looks much like a system of qualified majority voting. Heaven help us, but some mechanism must be found to resolve these matters.
The point the Minister hears from our discussion of this amendment, and from his hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on the previous amendment, is that once we have brought the powers back from the European Union, the status quo will no longer be fit for purpose.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I do so as a former special adviser in the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office and as a former shadow Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.
My experience and my observation is that even when Ministers in all corners of the UK have the best intentions of avoiding them, disputes regularly arise. As the Minister indicated, such disputes are normally dealt with on a pretty ad hoc basis, with an evolving series of concordats and memorandums of understanding. The memorable way in which the hon. Member for Waveney put it was that such matters are “the West Lothian question for fish”. Whenever such problems inevitably emerge, we traditionally kick the can, or the fish, down the road, rather than try to resolve them.
The Minister highlighted some of the thorny issues we have wrestled with over generations on both sides of the House in respect of devolution and the evolving devolution settlement. I put it to him that it is better, especially in an enabling framework Bill such as this, to try to shape future discussions and mitigate the emergence of problems and disputes, because one thing we can be certain of is that they will emerge in relation to fishing.
One simply need consider clause 3 in respect of the Secretary of State setting out his fisheries statement—the SSFS—and the joint fisheries statement being agreed between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, to see that there is an immediate problem. It is not clear to me from reading the Bill which of those statements has precedence. I assume that the hierarchy is that, just as each succeeding SSFS supersedes the preceding one, the SSFS would also have precedence over the JFS, but if the JFS were legally deemed to be the more important document, given that it had arguably reached by a more important means of negotiation between the different parts of the UK, it would be good if the Minister were to clarify that.
What happens if there is a significant difference of opinion between the UK Secretary of State, who is also the English Fisheries Minister, and Fisheries Ministers for the devolved Administrations about their priorities for their respective fishing areas? That seems an obvious problem, although this is not the area of the Bill in which that problem becomes most obvious: it is in clauses 18 and 19, which deal with the setting of quotas, that the potential for discord between the UK Minister and the devolved Administrations Ministers becomes most acute and most commercially problematic. In respect of the fisheries statements and the setting of quotas, it is perfectly possible that in future, for example, the UK Minister may wish to set quotas for shellfish that we do not currently have, which may be seen as unfair to fishers in Scotland or Wales in particular.
I think we all recognise that there are myriad potential problems here, and that it would be better if the Minister were able to come up with some more concrete means of assuring people that the Government have an idea of how they would resolve those problems. That might be through a dispute resolution mechanism as recommended by our Front Benchers, or through some other means, but I do not think kicking the can down the road is the right approach.
The Chair
I call the Minister—sorry, I call Mr Sweeney. I keep thinking you are a Front Bencher, but you are actually a Back Bencher.
Mr Sweeney
Technically, yes. Perhaps I am moonlighting as a Front Bencher. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I rise in support of this amendment. It reflects that devolution is a process, rather than an event, and if I were to do a risk profile of the Bill, this omission by the Government would be a red flag. It is important that this is addressed as a matter of urgency; it is critical, because as we have seen at instances throughout the discussions about the EU withdrawal process, impasses occur quite frequently between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government about how to proceed and how best to resolve issues. It is clear that in fisheries, there is a high risk of those issues emerging, so as a matter of prudence it is incumbent on the Government to make provision for issues to be resolved through a system and process defined in the Bill.
Alan Brown
I rise to ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I put to the shadow Minister: how does he see this mechanism being set up? If it is set up with the Secretary of State, how does he see it as being a panacea that will resolve any dispute if it does not have the input of the Administrations?
Mr Sweeney
I think it should be an inclusive process; I am not prescribing any particular definition for that, but I do not think the Secretary of State should have untrammelled power over the ultimate decisions. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested, it should be something that is equitable and democratic in nature. That would be the way to proceed.
Mr Carmichael
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to be make these arrangements? If we wait until there is a problem, then the creation of the resolution system itself will inevitably become contentious. This is the time for building strong bridges.
Mr Sweeney
I agree. It would be intelligent to set up this mechanism now, rather than when there is a heated dispute, which will inevitably emerge at some point in the course of history. It would be seen as enlightened to do that at this stage, and I urge the Minister to consider taking it forward as a matter of precaution, because we all share an interest in this legislation functioning as efficiently as possible and reflecting the realities of 20 years of devolution. As we have mentioned before, some of these provisions can form a blind spot in how the UK Government form their policies, and we have to be cognisant of the realities of how devolution functions.
This mechanism should not be monopolised by the devolved Administrations plus the UK Government; it could perhaps involve regional elements from all the devolved nations, which would be able to make submissions for dispute resolutions as well. It should proceed in an innovative and intelligent way. It would allow us to have properly functioning devolution, rather than simply devolving an issue and forgetting that it exists—throwing it over the wall and saying, “It is now branded with a saltire or a red dragon, and it is no longer our problem.” It should be an iterative process that everybody is involved with, because ultimately, fisheries are an common asset for all parts of the UK.
George Eustice
I hope to be able to reassure hon. Members that we are all one big happy family in this United Kingdom. The challenges that hon. Members have identified are not new; they date right back to the formation of the devolution settlement in the late 1990s. We have developed ways of managing these tensions.
As I said this morning on a previous group of amendments, the Bill seeks to resolve quite a difficult tension that has existed for at least the past 20 years: on one level, fisheries is about international agreements and negotiations, which are reserved, but on another level, issues such as enforcement, licensing and marine management have been devolved. That is the nature of our devolution settlement, and we have to use sensible, pragmatic and creative ways to bridge the tensions inherent in it.
The December Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting will be held next week. More than any other Department, DEFRA has developed quite a good way of working with all the devolved Administrations, so the annual December negotiations are attended not just by Ministers in the UK Government but by Ministers from each part of the United Kingdom. We go as a UK delegation led by the UK Minister, but when we enter trilateral discussions with the presidency and the Commission, for instance, my Scottish counterpart Fergus Ewing will speak on issues pertinent to Scotland, Lesley Griffiths will speak for the Welsh Government on issues pertinent to Wales, and the lead official John Speers will talk about issues pertinent to Northern Ireland.
We already attend as an integrated UK delegation, although we represent several Governments. In those difficult moments on Tuesday when we have to pick priorities by deciding which issues we will get no movement on from the Commission, or giving certain issues up to prioritise others, we will have to go through discussions to work out, collectively and by consensus, the correct approach for the UK. We have a very good track record of doing so, even though virtually every political party imaginable is in the delegation.
Mr Sweeney
The Minister outlines a de facto process that may function adequately, but would it not be helpful to define it in the Bill and give certainty about how it will function in the future?
George Eustice
I was going to come on to how we define other working relationships. I have set out the approach for annual fisheries negotiations, and I envisage that approach continuing in the future as we become an independent coastal state, but there are additional measures in place.
We have a series of concordats, which date back to 2012 and are regularly updated, setting out how we work together on issues such as vessel licensing that have implications for different parts of the UK. There is an overarching memorandum of understanding with all the devolved Administrations that includes a process for the Joint Ministerial Committee to act as a dispute resolution mechanism. We are currently developing a fisheries memorandum of understanding with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, which is likely to include a chapter on dispute resolution as part of a wider UK frameworks process led by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office is doing detailed, cross-Government work on the future of the JMC, on how its processes can be improved and on how issues such as dispute resolution can be addressed. I hope on Report to be able to explain more fully the thinking that is emerging.
Mr Sweeney
The Minister outlines a series of points about the functioning of de facto dispute resolutions that perform adequately, but anyone who has followed the events of the past few months with regard to EU withdrawal issues and the functioning of the JMC would agree that because it is not on a statutory footing, it has failed to perform adequately—I think that that is a fair assessment from the Opposition. Perhaps he ought to take cognisance of our need to get this stuff defined in statute so that it can function and work under pressure.
George Eustice
As I said, the Cabinet Office is leading a wider review of the memorandums of understanding and the JMC processes to see whether they can be improved. It obviously affects many other Departments as well. It is probably not right for me to go beyond that. I can explain what we currently do on fisheries.
Owen Smith
Does the Minister not acknowledge that part of the reason that the Cabinet Office is undertaking that review is the widespread dissatisfaction over many years in the devolved Administrations with the working of the Joint Ministerial Committee? For example, I cannot think of a single substantive issue that has been properly resolved at the JMC in recent times. If the Minister can think of one, perhaps he could inform the Committee.
George Eustice
At DEFRA, we have many discussions with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We have highly constructive dialogue and reach a consensus. That brings me to another point I want to make. In this context, let us be clear that we are talking about the formation of a joint fisheries statement. By its very nature, we are not talking about an argument over the implementation of any kind of agreement. We are talking about what it is collectively we are doing by way of policy to deliver the legally binding objective set out in clause 1.
If we as politicians cannot work through our differences and work towards achieving a consensus on a legally binding requirement here, who can? Are we seriously saying that having a judge come in to arbitrate, or to have some sort of arbitration process or panel, is going to cut it if, for instance, the Scottish Government have a particular concern about Orkney crabs and what is said about that in the joint fisheries statement? I put it to hon. Members that that is not the case.
We politicians cannot abdicate our responsibility and role. Part of that role is to work through our differences to achieve consensus where it is required to get an agreed policy statement that is legally binding on all of us equally and severally. I believe that because we have that legal commitment enshrined in clause 5(1) and because we have a very strong track record in DEFRA of successful concordats and memorandums of understanding, and because the Cabinet Office is doing a wider piece of work in this area, this amendment is unnecessary. It is ultimately for us, as elected politicians, at the very least, to agree what we are going to do by way of policy.
Luke Pollard
Mr Pollard, Mr Gray. We look nothing alike; one of us has a beard.
At some point in the future, the Hansard report of this Committee will be dug out by an industrious journalist and politicians, and they will inquire why a dispute mechanism was not put in place when the Bill was formed. They will look at the debate and see a Government that did not want to do so because they either failed to predict a problem or were so opposed to accepting amendments to the Bill that they knowingly proceeded with a hole in it. That is what we have here.
This is an enabling Bill, designed to create a system and framework for the proper governance of our fisheries in future. We should be taking the opportunity to look into every aspect, to ensure it will work in all circumstances and scenarios. There will be a problem in future in the event of one of the devolved Administrations or the UK deciding not to agree with the others on what is, as we all know, the most political part of DEFRA’s responsibility around fishing. Be that a manufactured concern or a valid concern on stock assessment or different elements of science conflicting, there will be a point of conflict in future.
Owen Smith
My hon. Friend is right. Is it not entirely predictable when that moment will come? It will be when the Secretary of State has the first opportunity to distribute fishing opportunities across the new UK waters and there is a dispute between the Administrations as to the fairness of that distribution, when those other Administrations are only consulted but do not have to consent to those changes. Is that not precisely when the rubber will hit the road?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right that is a possible scenario. There could be a multitude of other scenarios where that is a real risk.
Brendan O'Hara
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East said he was looking for a situation that was equitable and democratic. That is motherhood and apple pie to a place such as this, but he was lacking any details of what was being proposed and guarantees that it would not impinge on the devolved Administration, and something that takes into account—as we have talked about before—the asymmetrical constitutional set up that currently exists in the United Kingdom. Yes, we would love to see something that was democratic, accountable and equitable, but at the moment there is nothing on which to hang any of that.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I disagree. We do not know what the cause of that dispute will be or what form that dispute will take, but we can predict that there will be a dispute of some form in and around the formation of these joint fisheries statements in the future. We also know that at a time when climate change is changing the stock levels in our seas, when there is a real concern about how fishing quota is distributed—between ourselves within the UK, and with our EU neighbours and Norway—disputes will arise. It is inevitable that that will take place.
The summary of the debate we have had so far is that there is a hole in the Bill, which needs to be fixed. Ministers need to be seriously concerned about the fact that there will be a problem here and the relevant Hansard will be dug out. Whether the Minister is still in his place or not at that point—I suspect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd says, it may come sooner rather than later—we need to resolve this. As a result, we will push this amendment to a division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clause 4 stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
In the last group of amendments we covered many aspects of clause 3, which sets out the procedures that the four fisheries administrations would need to follow when preparing and adopting the joint fisheries statement. It also sets out the procedures for the Secretary of State to adopt a Secretary of State fisheries statement for England. This clause makes it clear that maintaining sustainable fisheries is a joint effort and requires the involvement of all four fisheries administrations. It requires all four to jointly prepare and adopt the joint fisheries statement for the statement to come into effect. The precise mechanism for preparing and publishing both the JFS and the SSFS are contained in schedule 1, which must be followed for the statements to come into effect. This sets out the provisions for consultation with industry and other interested parties. This clause is integral to both the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State fisheries statement.
Clause 4 makes it clear that any amendment to the joint fisheries statement can only be made by the fisheries administrations acting together. This clause is important in allowing the statements to be amendable, as a changing environment may require. For instance, there may be a change of Administration, Government, approach or circumstances, which would mean that it would be necessary, where possible, to amend and adapt the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State fisheries statement.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister. The Opposition has no issue with clause 4 and we are happy that it should stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 5
Deadline for first fisheries statements and obligation to review
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 5, page 4, line 10, leave out “before 1 January 2021” and insert—
“at the latest one calendar year from the date of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”.
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are published no more than one year after the UK leaves the EU.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 53, in clause 5, page 4, line 12, leave out “before 1 January 2021” and insert—
“at the latest one calendar year from the date of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”.
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are published no more than one year after the UK leaves the EU.
Luke Pollard
Amendments 52 and 53 would ensure that the fisheries statements are published no more than one year after the UK leaves the European Union. Much debate has been had as to when that date will be, and I am sure that the Minister will not seek to deviate from the line that he has been given by the Whips on that date. However, given that this is a situation in flux, and the uncertainty in the Government at the moment, and without wishing to apply any normative judgment on whether that is a good or bad thing, we do not know the date on which we will be leaving. The amendment would therefore make the Bill more flexible, should the date of exit change.
We have established today that UK fisheries management policy needs to be dynamic and reactive to the fluctuating marine environment. As the fisheries management policy manages a national resource, it needs to be accountable through Parliament as well. The joint fisheries statement is also the first proper acid test for the state of UK fisheries post-Brexit, and will be Parliament’s first opportunity to hold the Government to account against the promises made in the referendum and in the Bill. The idea that we would have to wait almost two years for the first joint fisheries statement if we leave the EU in March 2019 without a deal is not good enough.
Early scrutiny is particularly necessary, given the lack of guarantee in the political declaration that a new fisheries agreement will be completed before the end of the transition period, in July 2020. Instead, parties will use their “best endeavours”. Despite endless gold-plated promises, there is a real fear among fishers that that vague language means that there is a final betrayal coming for the industry. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) said that
“sovereignty of our waters could be sacrificed for a trade deal. That is unacceptable.”
I am sure that is a view shared by many in this place and in fishing communities around the country. Because there is no guarantee that there will be a new fisheries agreement with the EU by the end of the transition period, only a hope, there is a fear that once the spotlight has come off fishing a few months or years down the line, during a quiet moment of transition, the industry will be taken off to a quiet corner and betrayed in exchange for a free trade agreement with the EU. That is a real concern that fishers have expressed to me, sometimes in more colourful language than I have chosen to use. It is a valid concern that we need to address.
The Leader of the Opposition stated in the Commons that the concern is that all that we will do is enter into a new CFP but under a new name. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity in wanting to leave on the day that is Government policy today—rather than the one we might get tomorrow—but we do not want that to happen. It is out of his hands and I appreciate that. A hard date in the Bill may be useful for party political management on the Government Benches, but in creating an enabling Bill, we need to recognise that the date of exit may change and, therefore, 12 months from that date of exit is the first time that a fisheries statement should be presented to Parliament. That is the purpose of the amendments.
George Eustice
Setting out a particular date for completion when there are a number of scenarios that could unfold in respect of the withdrawal agreement and the nature of our exit from the EU does create some uncertainties—I would be the first to acknowledge that. As the hon. Gentleman said, things are currently in a state of flux.
I want to explain why we have chosen the 1 January 2021 as the date. When we drafted the Bill it was on the understanding and expectation that there would be an implementation period, during which we would be bound by the terms of the common fisheries policy until December 2020, when we would negotiate as an independent coastal state. The appropriate time to have this plan in place seemed to be January 2021. We chose the date on the basis of an expectation of an implementation period running until December 2020.
The second reason was that it gave us time to ensure that we can work through our differences across the four Administrations and have a plan in place. As well as the neatness of the measure commencing at the point at which the implementation period ends, it ensures that we give ourselves sufficient time to agree the plan and put it in place.
I know that a long-standing concern for a number of fishermen is that their interests may be traded for other elements of the future partnership. We have made it absolutely clear that we will not do that. We are absolutely clear that trade negotiations are separate from negotiations about access. The Government have tabled some amendments that we will discuss at a later date that I believe will give some reassurance to fishermen about that.
While I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, by the time the Bill reaches Report stage, we may all be slightly clearer as to the length of the implementation period or whether there is to be an implementation period at all and whether we leave without an agreement next March. I that suggest the hon. Gentleman keeps his powder dry on this issue until we all have greater clarity about what the future holds.
Finally, when making the case for his amendment, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the date on which we withdraw from the European Union could be a movable feast. I do not accept that. We are leaving the European Union come what may in March. The issue is whether there will be an implementation period and how long it will be. Will it go for the full duration until December 2020 or will it be possible to conclude it expeditiously? I therefore accept that there is an element of doubt about the length of the implementation period and whether there will be one. I suggest we revisit the issue of timescales for the production of the joint fisheries statement on Report, when I hope things will be clearer.
Luke Pollard
There are no surprises in the Minister’s response, but I enjoyed the phrase “we will work through our differences across the four Administrations”, given the time required to do that. I suspect that was the exact opposite of the sentiment that was exhibited in the dispute resolution debate.
There is significant concern among fishing industries that they will be sold out, just as they were during the transition period. Ministers, including this Minister, were advocating that fisheries should be excluded from the transition period up to a week before that policy changed. Fishers around our coastline have every reason to be sceptical about some of the promises that have been given.
George Eustice
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the ultimate sell-out for British fishing would be to stay in the European Union and therefore stay in the common fisheries policy?
Luke Pollard
I understand that fishing was sold out on the way into the EU and there is a risk of it being sold out on the way out of the EU. A lot of our fishing communities share that concern. We need to recognise that. I respect the Minister’s desire to leave on the date that has currently been stated by the Government. As the Government are changing their mind about a lot to do with Brexit, and as this is an enabling Bill, should we not be flexible and be able to reflect possible changes during this period?
I am happy to take the Minister’s suggestion to keep my powder dry on this one and revisit it on Report. However, there is a genuine concern that fishing will be sold out, given any hard dates, and more work needs to be done to reassure fishers that they will not be sold out when it comes to the political agreement further down the line. A flexible date would be one way of doing that. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5, page 4, line 15, leave out “6” and insert “5”
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 55, in clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out “6” and insert “5”
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
Amendment 56, in clause 5, page 4, line 22, leave out “6” and insert “5”
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
Amendment 57, in clause 5, page 4, line 24, leave out “6” and insert “5”
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
Luke Pollard
These amendments make a similar point to the earlier ones, in respect of the timeframe that we are looking at. They would remove the restriction of six years and replace it with five years. Six years is far too long to leave the Executive unaccountable if it is necessary to force them to change bad policy. That is why we wish to change the period from six years to five years.
Five years is the length of a fixed-term Parliament. It would mean that, in any given Parliament, there can be accountability for the policies that the Government are seeking to put in place via the Fisheries Bill. Otherwise, in a fixed-term Parliament of five years, there may not be an opportunity due to the period being set at six years. I encourage the Minister to look again at the arbitrary six years. We want to ensure that, every five years, at the start of a new parliamentary term, fisheries is right up there as one of the main policy items under review. Every new Parliament should have the ability to review fisheries policy.
As drafted, the Fisheries Bill gives the benefit of the doubt and too much discretion to people in office. There is not enough of a guarantee that the policies will achieve our fisheries objectives. We tabled the amendments to enhance scrutiny and to ensure that the Government’s aim to have truly sustainable world-leading fisheries is delivered.
George Eustice
It has been a little while since I mentioned the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. I want to explain where the allegedly arbitrary figure of six years came from. It mirrors the approach set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act in respect of the production of marine spatial plans. There is a requirement in the Act to review the marine spatial plans at six-yearly intervals. Our officials, when considering what would be appropriate—we wanted to have a consistent approach to the marine environment—took the view that, as marine spatial plans are reviewed every six years, that would seem to be the appropriate precedent to follow in respect of these other plans.
Six years has a precedent, and indeed one that some Opposition Members might have voted for—not the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, but other hon. Members—when the Marine and Coastal Access Act was passed. There is no precedent for five years. I understand that hon. Members may take the view that, under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, five years is the typical duration of a Government, but clause 4 creates a power to amend the plan at any time.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I very much understand what the Minister is saying, but with climate change, things often happen much more rapidly than Parliament might make provision for. Does he not agree that there should be some flexibility, particularly in regard to changes in water temperatures and fish stocks, which are moving all the time? We should look at the evidence for the timing, rather than just look backwards to an Act from a few years ago?
George Eustice
I strongly agree, which is why we included clause 4, which gives fisheries policy authorities the ability to amend the plans whenever they choose to do so. If events move and we need to adopt a different approach to mitigate the effect of climate change because things happened faster than we thought, or there was an environmental challenge that had not been foreseen in the six-year plan, there is a power to amend the joint fisheries statement to reflect that change under any circumstances and at any time.
With the six years, we have chosen to adopt a timescale that has a precedent in the context of managing the marine environment. We also included a clear provision that means that, at any time, we can adapt and amend the plan in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford seeks, to ensure that it can respond to events.
I hope I have been able to inform the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about the genesis of the choice of a six-year term as a starting point, and also about the fact that clause 4 gives us the power to amend the plans at any stage, which means that moving the time period to five years, as he suggests, is perhaps unnecessary.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out why five years is not as good as six; none the less, I think there is a point about our effective scrutiny of the system. When the Marine and Coastal Access Act was initially enacted, it was at the start of that journey of organising marine plans and policies. We are now in a very different place, both politically and environmentally. I am grateful for the comments about climate change made by the hon. Member for Stafford. Our world is changing and our fisheries need to be more adaptable to the concerns around climate change.
Alan Brown
In support of the principle of reducing the review period from six to five years, I tried to get in earlier on. I have concern about linking it to a parliamentary term, because as we know, despite the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, we have already had one Government that did not last five years, and the way things are going, it is highly probable that this Government will not, either, so I would be wary of linking it to a Westminster parliamentary term. That would also override the parliamentary cycle of the devolved Administrations. I am happy with five years, but we should be wary of how this is linked to the parliamentary cycles.
Luke Pollard
In seeking to move from six to five, that was merely to move from six years to five years, rather than necessarily to align with that parliamentary cycle.
Mike Hill
Would moving the period to five not mean that the Government of the day were accountable for actions they had taken, rather than leaving it to a sixth year, when potentially it would be a different Government and it could trigger a new way of assessing things? It could be a false trigger for the future.
Luke Pollard
I agree. Although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, that Governments may not last for five years—indeed, the reason that I am here and not doing my former job of advising on how to build skyscrapers is that the House decided to have an election and not use the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to see out five years—there is a possibility that these plans may not be reviewed within an entire, normal Parliament, which means that an entire batch of Members of Parliament for that parliamentary term will not have the chance to do this. I recognise the flexibility that the Minister has outlined.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Bearing in mind the rationale that the hon. Member is now using, surely he should have drafted his amendment in the context of this being looked at within each term of Parliament, rather than on an arbitrary five-year basis?
Luke Pollard
No, I am quite comfortable that the words “leave out “6” and insert “5”” are entirely sufficient to deal with this clause; none the less, I take the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. There is concern here about the frequency of scrutiny. If the Minister can reflect on that, there is a strong sense of our wanting to be sure.
George Eustice
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he chose five years rather than four or three?
Luke Pollard
I can indeed; it is because two was suggested. Feedback from stakeholders was that they felt that six years was too long. A number of suggestions came back for different periods, two and three being some of those—indeed, Fishing for Leave was strong in its advocacy of two years. I felt that two years is too frequent, but six years is too long. Therefore, looking to lock it into the period during, in theory, a parliamentary five-year term, seems to be the right amount of time.
I am grateful for the flexibility that the Minister has set out. Should the Government change, I would expect that flexibility to be used by a Labour Government in moving that to five. I think that would be the right thing to do. However, on the basis of the discussion we have had, I am content not to push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Effect of statements
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out from “authority” to end of line 34.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 90, in clause 6, page 4, line 37, leave out from “authority” to end of line 42.
Peter Aldous
Amendments 81 and 82, which come next, also relate to this clause, and the points that I make now apply to those changes as well.
The Chair
I think it is better to discuss those separately because they are grouped separately. We will stick to amendments 89 and 90 for now.
Peter Aldous
Thank you, Mr Gray.
I will highlight two points on which I hope to gain clarification from the Minister. First, it is important for all public bodies involved in fisheries management to adhere to the principle of the fisheries statements. The amendments therefore seek to expand the scope of the list of those authorities to which the statements apply. I have also sought to ensure that the list is not exhaustive.
Secondly, the amendments would reduce those authorities’ discretion not to comply with the obligation. They would provide a legally binding commitment on the public authorities to achieve the fisheries objective. I am concerned about what appears to be some wriggle room for authorities not to comply with the statements. I would be grateful if the Minister allayed my concerns.
Luke Pollard
Although this might be the kiss of death for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the Opposition are minded to support it, because it seeks to improve the duties in the Bill.
The Bill’s wording gives significant powers for a relevant national authority to amend policies contained within the joint fisheries statement with little scrutiny or challenge. The amendment would remove the vague and meaningless “relevant considerations”, a term that appears to be a get-out clause to allow authorities to act as they please when it suits them.
Earlier, the Minister said that the power would enable reaction to a huge surprise event, but how can we be sure that it would not be abused? The clause is not specific enough, and no safeguards are in place to stop it being used as a “Get out of jail” card. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd did, I ask the Minister what “relevant considerations” mean in this context. That is the nub of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Waveney.
In the evidence session last week, Tom Appleby from the Blue Marine Foundation criticised the clause as it stands:
“Our fisheries statements are a bit woolly. I notice that there is a bit in here that says that they do not have to adhere if relevant considerations are taken into account. What is a relevant consideration? I could not find a definition of that.
We have not nailed the Secretary of State to the floor in this Bill, and that could be done.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 56, Q120.]
I am not, of course, advocating nailing the Secretary of State to any floors—[Interruption.] Indeed. Government Members might like to go there, but not Opposition Members. Debbie Crockard of the Marine Conservation Society said something similar at another of our evidence sessions:
“the problem with the joint fisheries statement is that, under clause 6(2), if a national authority takes the decision to act other than in accordance with the JFS, it simply has to state the reason why. There is no binding duty to follow that JFS. If it goes against the JFS and sets fishing limits that are not legally bound, there is nothing to hold it to account in that situation.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 77, Q152.]
Both the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Waveney, and that concern about the lack of any dispute resolution, go to the heart of the weakness of the joint fisheries statement that he rightly highlighted.
George Eustice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for tabling the amendments and highlighting an important issue. I understand why some might be concerned about the inclusion of the provision, because they judge that it to be a “Get out of jail” card which means that people would not have to follow the statement at all.
As with earlier amendments, I will explain the genesis of the language chosen for the clause. Again, I am afraid, I have to pray in aid the Marine and Coastal Access Act. Section 58(1) states:
“A public authority must take any authorisation or enforcement decision in accordance with the appropriate marine policy documents, unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.”
The claim by some that the language in the Bill is random, new language that has never been used in legislation before is therefore not true. It is a form of words that was used in the most recent piece of marine management legislation available, which was introduced by the Labour Government.
The reason we have the provision is to ensure that in instances where we have a sudden change in circumstances, which might put us outside a joint fisheries statement, there is, in a sort of force majeure—
Alan Brown
I just want to understand what the Minister is talking about. Exceptional circumstances may arise that need swift action. Therefore, is there not a way to improve the language in the Bill, even though this serves as a precedent, rather than the amendment, which would delete it completely? Is that something the Government would consider for the next stage?
George Eustice
I was going to return to that point. As I said at the outset, while I think it is wrong to delete that flexibility for a force majeure event all together, I am certainly willing to look on Report at whether we could refine or narrow the scope and the circumstances in which such a measure could be used.
Let me give an example. If there were a sudden change in the health of a particular stock, we might have it as part of the plan that a stock could be exploited at a particular level. We might not want to do that anymore and might therefore step outside the plan—not to overexploit a stock but to stop exploiting it all together. It might also be the case that in order to reach an agreement with, say, Norway, which uses maximum sustainable yield as well as other environmental measurements and metrics, we might have to move slightly outside the scope of our own plan. Then a question has to be asked: as I put to Dr Carl O’Brien, is it better to get an agreement so that everyone is working within agreed limits and to an agreed plan with our neighbours—say, Norway—or is it better for everyone to just kick the table over, walk away and unilaterally set their own total allowable catch? I would say it is always the former. There will be times when we may have to step slightly outside the joint fisheries statement in the interests of getting a fisheries agreement at all, which is ultimately for the benefit of the stock.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has highlighted an important issue. I hope he understands that, because we need that flexibility both for force majeure events and for other sudden developments, we need some sort of provision for those circumstances. Therefore, deleting the wording all together is wrong. However, in view of the points that he and others have raised, I will give this further consideration as we approach Report to see whether we can narrow that power so it can be used only in prescribed circumstances.
Owen Smith
The Minister is offering some comfort to those of us who have expressed concerns about how loosely the clause seems to be drawn. I put it to the Minister that if what he is envisaging here are very exceptional circumstances—he keeps using the phrase “force majeure circumstances”—why is the language so loosely drawn? It says:
“unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”
and this seems to be a fairly broadly drawn set of circumstances. Crucially, subsection (4) says:
“If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) takes any decision”.
That is an extraordinarily broad set of circumstances. If it is intended to be so limited, why is it so broad?
George Eustice
I explained the genesis of that choice of words earlier. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 also uses the term
“unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”,
so it is not a new form of words in our legislation and it was used in our most recent piece of legislation dealing with the marine environment. As I said, I accept that we should go away and consider whether we can narrow the scope within which such a power could be used, and I have undertaken to give that further consideration by the time the Bill is on Report.
Owen Smith
I do not think anybody is suggesting that the problem is that the language is new. It is the fact that the language is so poorly and so broadly drawn.
George Eustice
Well, I blame the last Labour Government for the drafting of the legislation. We have reached a convenient conclusion and I have made an open offer to give this further consideration to see if we can narrow the scope so that it is closer to its intended use, rather than it becoming a simple get out of jail card in all circumstances. I look forward to updating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on Report.
Peter Aldous
It has been a useful short debate. I was not happy with the clause as it is drafted; there needs to be a balance between flexibility—that is needed—and not too much flexibility that gives the get-out-of-jail card. I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for his suggestion that we look at this in a bit more detail, and the Minister for taking up that offer. I look forward to looking at this matter more closely in redrafted clauses on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Access to British fisheries by foreign fishing boats
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 8, page 5, line 13, leave out “a” and insert “an annual British”.
The amendment applies to clause 8 and to schedule 2. There is concern that there are no provisions in the Bill for foreign vessels to comply with the same standards as UK vessels. Foreign vessels’ access to UK waters must be contingent on compliance with the same environmental standards as are applicable to UK vessels. That way, there will be a level playing field and the same high level of environmental protection will apply to all fishing in UK waters.
There is a worry—perhaps I am being alarmist—that the Dutch might be allowed to continue with the environmental vandalism that is electro-pulse fishing, which takes place off the East Anglian coast, and which we may or may not debate in more detail later.
I would welcome clarification from the Minister. I ask that he allay my concerns and assure me that the same level playing field will apply to all vessels in UK waters.
Luke Pollard
The amendment seeks to limit the time foreign boats have a licence to fish in UK waters to a single year. It is important that British boats take back control of our waters and the lion’s share of our quota, consistent with moving from relative stability to zonal attachment, which is where the hon. Gentleman is going. With regard to foreign boats, we need to explore this issue in much more detail and depth. There is concern about the simple timeframe, but the general principle the hon. Gentleman is following is a good one to explore further. I will sit down so the Minister can do precisely that.
Jeremy Lefroy
A brief point: we talk about access to British fisheries, but I imagine we are talking about United Kingdom fisheries. I wonder whether British and United Kingdom are being used interchangeably, because we talk about United Kingdom later on. Could I have some clarification on that?
George Eustice
I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney the reassurance he seeks. The amendment is unnecessary. The reason is that we are absolutely clear and explicit that in future, once the Bill comes into effect, it will be prohibited for any foreign vessel to fish in UK waters in the UK’s exclusive economic zone unless it has a UK fishing licence. I draw his attention to clause 11(1), which could not be clearer. It states that
“Fishing within British fishery limits by a foreign fishing boat is prohibited unless authorised by a licence.”
He should read that in conjunction with clause 12(3), which states quite clearly that
“A licence under this section may be granted so as to impose limits on the authority”.
That licence would govern the area in which fishing is authorised, so it could prevent fishing in certain areas; the periods, times or particular voyages during which fishing is authorised; the types of fish that are allowed be caught during a visit to UK waters; and finally, in subsection 12(3)(d)—of relevance to pulse trawling, which I know my hon. Friend feels strongly about—the method of sea fishing. That would give us all the powers we need to impose on all foreign fishing vessels a requirement to use a particular type of fishing method and a particular gear type. Without wanting to dwell on the detail, clause 31 also gives powers for the Administrations to set technical conservation measures in their waters, separate from the conditions which are attached to the licence. On that basis, I hope that the he agrees that the amendment is unnecessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made a point about the use of the term “British” and whether we mean “UK” or “British”. In general, we talk in terms of a UK fishing licence, which is a licence issued by any of the Administrations in the UK. In the event of granting a licence to foreign vessels, the MMO, with the consent of the devolved Administrations, would issue a single licence on behalf of every part of the UK. A separate, long-established term in fisheries legislation from 1967 and before is “British vessel”, which tends to mean any vessel that is registered to the UK—including Northern Ireland—or to the Crown dependencies, or British-owned vessels. The term “British vessel”, which stems from an era in which “British” tended to be used in a different context to that of today, runs through our previous legislation and is used in parts of the Bill.
Peter Aldous
I thank the Minister for his latter clarification in response to the question from the hon. Member for Stafford. He has saved me from the embarrassment of shoddy use of language. I am also grateful to him for providing such extensive clarification and reassurances, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Clause 8 simply sets the terms under which foreign fishing boats may enter British fishery limits and replaces section 2 of the Fishery Limits Act 1976. Under that section, as amended by the Scotland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of State and Ministers of devolved Administrations may designate, by Order in Council, the foreign countries whose vessels may enter British fishery limits.
Paragraph 8(1)(a) provides that a foreign vessel can enter British fishery limits only if it has a sea fishing licence. The effect of the clause is that all foreign fishing vessels will need the express permission of the UK to enter into our waters to fish. Subsection (2) requires that foreign fishing boats must leave British fisheries limits as soon as their fishing activities or other purposes for entering British fishery limits have been completed.
The purpose of the measure is to ensure that foreign vessels entering UK waters leave once their permitted purpose has concluded. Subsection (3) creates an offence against the master, and an offence of vicarious liability against the owner and the charterer of a foreign fishing vessel, for entering UK waters for any purpose other than fishing in accordance with a sea fishing licence, and under international law agreements or arrangements.
Luke Pollard
As we prepared for the Bill, a number of stakeholders expressed concern about a missing element: a requirement for foreign fishing boats to abide by the same standards as British fishing boats. As that is covered by an amendment we seek to table elsewhere in the Bill, I will not push it to a conversation or debate now. That is the only omission and, as the clause stands, we will not oppose it.
Jeremy Lefroy
I will ask the Minister one brief question, if he will forgive my ignorance. Does this provision include access for the purposes of landing fish as well? Let us say that fish are being caught in other waters but are to be landed for processing in UK ports. How would this measure apply to that?
George Eustice
The direct answer is that there are other provisions in international maritime law that enable the passage of vessels for lawful purposes, including trade or landing fish elsewhere. The terms of the fishing licence will be specifically pertinent to the fishing activity that is permitted under that particular licence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
British fishing boats required to be licensed
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 18—Licensing of fishing boats—
“The Marine Management Organisation must exercise its functions so as to secure (so far as possible) that—
(a) fishing boats are not used in contravention of section 9(1) (prohibition on fishing without authority of licence), and
(b) conditions attached to sea fishing licences under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 are not broken, as a result of the exercise of rights sold in accordance with the regulations.”
George Eustice
The clause sets out the conditions under which British fishing boats would be licensed to fish in UK waters and prohibits fishing without a licence, except for stated specific exemptions. The Secretary of State may make regulations to add, remove or vary the exceptions listed. Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Government must be consulted prior to any such regulations being made.
If British fishing boats take part in fishing activities in UK waters that are not exceptions under subsection (2) without a fishing licence, the owner, charterer and master will be guilty of an offence. Further information on the offences and associated penalties is contained in clauses 14 to 16, which we will come to.
Peter Aldous
I will not detain the Committee long. New clause 18 is a probing one to seek clarification from the Minister on the extent of the MMO’s responsibility with regard to the licensing of fishing boats. I particularly seek clarification that the conditions will still apply when rights have been transferred. I am concerned that there might be loopholes that the ingenious might seek to exploit, and I would be grateful if the Minister could allay my concerns on that point.
George Eustice
The proposed new clause relates to the enforcement functions of the MMO. I can tell my hon. Friend that the MMO already has a wide suite of enforcement powers. I will get bored with mentioning this Act, but part 8 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 sets out the MMO’s powers. Section 238 gives it powers to enforce fisheries legislation; sections 246 to 254 give it powers of entry, search and seizure; and sections 264 to 287 give it fisheries enforcement powers, such as inspection powers, so the MMO already has a broad suite of powers in current legislation.
Mr Sweeney
Is it not a matter of regret for the Minister that Phil Haslam, the director of operations at the MMO, said its budget has reduced by 60% since its inception? Surely that has had an impact on its operational effectiveness.
George Eustice
The purpose of the Bill is to look forward. The important thing is having the capacity in place should it need to be called on. Currently, two fisheries patrol vessels are typically deployed in English waters. We will be moving to a position where we have access to up to 10 or 11 vessels, and aerial surveillance on top of that. That is a substantial increase in enforcement capacity, should it be needed. It may not be needed, but we do not yet know what scenarios we may face, so as a precaution we built in the capacity we might need.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Power to grant licences in respect of British fishing boats
Peter Aldous
I will not move amendment 17, because it relates to—shall we say—the West Lothian question relating to fishing.
The Chair
You just need to say it is not moved; there is no need to speak to it. Unless anyone disagrees, I do not think there is any need to debate clause stand part.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats
Mr Carmichael
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 12, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish each year a report on—
(a) the number of licenses granted, and
(b) the country of origin of the boat to which each license is granted.”
To ensure transparency and accountability over the granting of licenses to foreign fishing boats by each relevant national authority.
Clause 12 centres on the power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats. There is concern in the industry—principally on the part of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations—that there is a need for greater transparency in the way and the extent to which that is done. For that reason, my amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish each year a report on the number of licences granted and the country of origin of the boat to which each licence is granted.
Currently, the Bill allows only the political representatives of each of the relevant national authorities to grant licences to foreign fishing boats. The purpose of the amendment is to bring in an element of transparency and accountability. It should not be particularly onerous—I would have thought the administrative procedure would be fairly straightforward—but it would allow the industry to have confidence in the way the system works and prevent, or at least highlight, any abuse of the system, ensuring fair and appropriate use of the powers.
George Eustice
I hope I can reassure right the hon. Gentleman that, in common with a number of similar amendments, the amendment is not necessary but we have nothing to hide in this regard. I anticipate that we would indeed publish the number of licences granted where we were able to, probably as part of the Marine Management Organisation’s annual report, which covers a wide range of issues. I am happy to explore with officials whether a section could be added to the report to include such data.
There is one potential technical flaw with that approach. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the granting of licences is a devolved matter. We have been working with the devolved Administrations on a sensible and pragmatic approach. In all likelihood, there will be one issue of a licence to foreign vessels granted access to our waters. It will be issued by the Marine Management Organisation, but only with the consent of each devolved Administration. The purpose of that is to remove the pointless duplication of having to issue four separate licences covering each part of the UK for an internationally agreed arrangement to grant a particular cohort of vessels access to our waters.
If that administrative approach holds—the devolved Administrations show no appetite at the moment for issuing lots of separate licences for foreign access—the Marine Management Organisation would indeed have access to that information. If at some point one of the devolved Administrations decided to grant their own licence, the right hon. Gentleman might have to ask his colleagues in other devolved legislatures to table parliamentary questions to seek the answers that he is interested in.
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point of principle, and I will seek to update the Committee on Report about whether we can include what he asks for as a convention to be included in the annual Marine Management Organisation report. I hope he will not see the need to make it a statutory requirement.
Mr Carmichael
We strike a recurring theme here: the Minister is determined to legislate for happy times. We all hope that happy times will last. By definition, to be a Liberal Democrat is to be an optimist, so I hope more than anybody else that happy times might last. However, the purpose of the legislation is to deal with occasions when there are differences, tensions and disagreements. I do not doubt that the Minister will continue to publish the information in the way that he describes, but it is just about conceivable that the day will come when the Minister is not the Minister and there might be another Minister who will do things very differently. That is why we put these things in statute rather than leaving them to the discretion of individual Ministers.
George Eustice
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that in such circumstances, there would be many other mechanisms available, not least simply tabling a parliamentary question. If the Marine Management Organisation had access to the information since it had issued the said licences, it would be inconceivable that it could avoid answering such a question were it tabled as a parliamentary question.
Mr Carmichael
That is undoubtedly the case, but I said right at the start that the issue is one of transparency and accountability. Such things are best hard-wired into the Bill, rather than being left to the vagaries of the written parliamentary question system. The Minister says he will take the matter away and report back to the Committee at a later stage, so I will not press the amendment to a Division, but, as a caveat to that, I reserve the position with regard to later procedure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 12, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
‘(3A) No licence may be granted under this section unless conditions are attached to that licence so as to require the foreign fishing boat to comply with any standards in relation to environmental protection and marine safety that would apply to the same boat if it were a British fishing boat.”
This amendment would require licences granted to require foreign fishing boats to comply with the same environmental protection and marine safety standards as British fishing boats.
Amendment 63 seeks to put into the Bill a common and very serious concern of many of our fishing communities around the country, which is that the regime that might exist after we leave the EU will see one set of rules for UK fishers and potentially another set of rules for EU fishers, because access to our waters will still be on the basis of fixed quota allocations and many foreign boats will still own quota to access UK waters after we leave the UK, and a drawdown period, if one exists, will take a while to achieve. The amendment seeks to create in the Bill the very clear, in stark plain English, description that says that foreign fishing boats should obey the same rules as British fishing boats. It is a principle to which there is huge agreement across the country from Plymouth and Cornwall right up to the north of Scotland. It would not create extra burdens for our EU friends entering UK waters. It would create the same burdens—the same regulatory requirements—to which any UK fisher must adapt.
In particular, the amendment deals with environmental protections and marine safety. It is vital, when it comes to safety, that we do not inadvertently create incentives for foreign boats to cut corners and take risks with their crews that we would not allow on our own boats. We already know from anecdotal evidence that safety standards on different EU countries’ boats are very different. There are different levels of enforcement and compliance with existing regulations.
If we say—rightly, and as the Minister did in the earlier discussion on marine safety—that we want high levels of marine safety for UK boats, we should require the same high levels of marine safety for foreign boats. If we do not, there will be a regulatory gap, potentially, between UK and foreign fishing boats. There will be an efficiency in having lower marine standards, in relation to the cost of compliance for UK and EU fishers. Potentially, a situation could be created where our EU friends might, while fishing in our waters, get into trouble more often because of the lower levels of protection.
The amendment is simple, and would put into the Bill something that fishers across the country want—a clear prescription that EU fishers will obey the same regulations as UK fishers. It is essential to the Bill, and I am surprised that it has not been included. There would, I think, be support for it on both sides of the Committee. I suspect that the Minister will oppose it, and I should be grateful if he set out his reasons for doing so, and explain how the same thing can be achieved by other means. There is concern in fishing organisations because the detail in the Bill includes no such clarity about the same regulatory standards applying to EU and UK fishers.
Mr Sweeney
I support the amendment. Coming from a shipbuilding background with, perhaps, issues not entirely dissimilar to those affecting fisheries, I know the frustration in many industries about having a level playing field and the opportunity to compete on the same basis. That is the reality facing many fishermen in the UK.
Many boats adhere to onerous constraints, such as the environmental standards and safety requirements that govern their operation. That is right, and respects the way we do business. It is therefore only right that all fishing boats operating in British territorial waters should adhere to the same conditions. Not only does that reduce risk to our maritime patrol agencies that would have to intervene in certain scenarios, if people’s safety was at risk; it also improves the environmental situation—and environmental damage would cause damage to many stakeholders in the industry and the country.
For those reasons it is critical that the Minister should include the measure in the Bill. Not only would that safeguard the UK fishing industry and its interests, including in the Western Isles, Fraserburgh, Peterhead and the big commercial areas, but it would ensure that other stakeholders, many of them around the UK coastline, would be protected from the negative effects of incursions by boats that did not adhere to the same standards within UK territorial waters. That would be a very worthwhile thing to do.
George Eustice
I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that the amendment is unnecessary, because of provisions that already exist. The amendment has two objectives—to get foreign vessels to abide by the same environmental standards as British fishing vessels would need to, and to get them to abide by the same safety standards.
To begin with the first objective, paragraph 1(2)(d) of schedule 2 allows conditions to be imposed
“for the purposes of conserving or enhancing the marine and aquatic environment”.
The Bill therefore includes the power to impose such conditions, detailed in schedule 2. It is absolutely our intention, as we make clear in our White Paper, that any vessel seeking to access UK waters would have to abide by the environmental standards that we set out. However, I caution against saying that they must abide by the same standards as us, because there may be circumstances where we would not want to grant them access to the areas where our fishing vessels can go, or where we might not allow foreign vessels to use particular types of gear where we might allow our own vessels to do so.
Luke Pollard
I have to say to the Minister that I am not reassured by that, and neither are fishing communities up and down the country. They are looking for wording in the Bill that says that EU fishing boats will have the same standards as UK fishing boats because of the widespread perception and reality that, at present, they do not have the same standards. Although I appreciate the Minister’s efforts to explain why there is an existing equivalence, that is not the lived experience of fishers across the UK today.
George Eustice
The cause of that is European law, and the fact that we have to abide by it and sometimes accept certain practices in our waters that we would otherwise choose not to. The premise of the Bill is that when we take control of these matters and have a proper licensing regime, it is for us, and us alone, to determine the conditions that we place on vessels that want to enter our waters. That is not the case now. That is why fishermen feel aggrieved.
Luke Pollard
Indeed they are. Those are fine words, which I wish I had used in my opening remarks, because that is exactly the point of this amendment. As we are now taking back control of our waters, it is up to us to set the standards that we wish the fishers in our community to be governed by. That is why it is important that we include in the Bill a clear set of words that say that EU fishers must abide by the same regulations as UK fishers, because the sense of betrayal, which I spoke about earlier, is not just about giving away access to waters, but about having different rules that they play by. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East was exactly right about the requirement for a level playing field. There is a real concern among fishers that a level playing field will not be achieved by this Bill. The refusal to put into the Bill clear wording that says that EU fishers must obey the same rules as UK fishers will worry an awful lot of our fishing communities up and down the country. I will therefore not withdraw the amendment, but will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 4 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
House of Commons Financial Plan and Draft Estimates
(5 years, 4 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
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the House of Commons Financial Plan 2019-20 to 2022-23 and draft Estimates for 2019-20.
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. This is the first time we have had a debate such as this since 2014, and I think that all members of the Finance Committee feel that it is a shame and a mistake that we have not had one every year. I do not think we are the only people in Parliament who think that the management of the expenditure on the House and the way we do our business in Parliament has for years not been done as efficiently and effectively as it might be. In 2014, the Committee did have a debate of this kind. It took place on the Floor of the House and the expectation was that it would become an annual event. However, because we had general elections in 2015 and 2017, there was no Committee in place to ask for a debate, so we did not have one.
In the end, we are talking about taxpayers’ money here. Personally, I would be very critical of the whole way in which we spend taxpayers’ money in this country, in the sense that we theoretically have debates on estimates, but we never or very rarely have votes on them. We can only cut the amount of money being spent; we cannot reallocate from one estimate to another. To all intents and purposes, we do not really have a budget in this country, but a Budget statement. We do not have a budget in the sense that most other Parliaments in the world—or, for that matter, most local authorities—would understand the word. Therefore, the Finance Committee, which I chair, thinks it important that at least for this bit, which is the money spent on Parliament itself, we show a degree of discretion and try to get to the bottom of some of the key issues facing us.
We all also want to see far better responsibility and accountability for financial decisions made within the two parliamentary estimates that I will talk about. The two estimates, as I am sure you know, Mr Howarth, are the administration estimate and the Members estimate. The Members estimate is now much smaller than the admin estimate. I cannot for the life of me understand why we still have two estimates. I understand that the Government object to binding these two estimates together, but I cannot understand why. The admin estimate is far bigger than the Members estimate, and having the two separate just seems an unnecessary additional administrative burden.
In relation to the admin estimate, which as I said is far larger, the process is iterative. That is to say that as we advance towards the final estimate being laid, we on the Finance Committee provide advice to the House of Commons Commission, and that informs the estimate that is eventually laid. Quite often in that process, we on the Finance Committee have tried to bring decisions earlier, so that the Commission can be better informed and we can have a more strategic look at the whole of our finances. Part of what governs that is that we set a remit for the resource element of the admin estimate. At the moment, that assumes zero real-terms growth. That is partly because we have been making some £15.5 million-worth of savings, which we can then reinvest. Those are not just cuts; they are genuine savings. We are doing more for less money and we can then put the money back into the resource element of the admin budget.
We do have some exceptions and I worry, as Chair of the Committee, that the number of exceptions always grows; it never seems to diminish. For instance, we allow ourselves, quite rightly, an exception from the remit for increased scrutiny of Government. Brexit has led to an extra Select Committee. That has a cost, because there have to be Clerks and there has to be Committee time and there are printing costs and all the rest of it. Indeed, in recent years, the Select Committee process has become one of the most important elements of the way we do our business in Parliament, and consequently there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of work that those Committees are doing. The Liaison Committee, which gathers together the Chairs of all the Select Committees, made a passionate plea for an additional £1.3 million this year, and we think that that is an important additional piece of expenditure.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is outlining his case very cogently. He has talked about the expansion of Select Committees. Does he agree that, hopefully in the very near future, the Exiting the European Union Committee will not have much more to do?
Chris Bryant
Yes, but for a completely different reason: I hope that we will be exiting Brexit rather than Brexiting, although I do not think that that is a matter for this debate, Mr Howarth.
Chris Bryant
The second exception that we make—again, I think that it is difficult to disagree with—relates to security. The physical aspects of security in this building and of Members in their constituencies are obviously important, but as we have seen in the last two years, the cyber-security of the parliamentary estimate is also a vital element of enabling the democratic process to proceed. It is not just Russia but China and, potentially, a whole series of other countries that, as state actors, might be seeking to undermine the cyber-security of this place, and it would be all too easy for other people engaged in espionage to attack it. Of course, there have also been the very sad deaths of Jo Cox and PC Keith Palmer.
I am therefore fully aware that it is important to have an exception from the remit for security, but we need to be very clear that we are getting good value for money and that we are not wasting taxpayers’ money, even when we are dealing with security matters. I have some concerns about the contract with Chubb and the way it has been administered; I think that the Committee will want to look at that in the near future.
One of the largest areas of exception from the remit is, of course, the major strategic programmes that we have in the Palace of Westminster. There are three such programmes. The first is restoration and renewal. Everyone is aware of that—we had a big debate on it. Unfortunately, the delays in delivering it have made it very difficult for us to be clear about exactly when we will be incurring the expenditure. Indeed, the delays in decision making in the House have made it more difficult for the Officers of the House to be able to deliver clear financial decision making.
The second programme is the northern estate programme. That is definitely progressing. We have been involved in looking at some of the suggestions of what there may be, including in relation to the alternative Chamber that will be built, largely on the same basis as the current Commons Chamber but with better disabled access; provision of offices for Members who are being decanted out of this building; and ensuring that the whole of the northern estate within the curtilage is efficiently and effectively used. I passionately support that programme, because I think that at the end of it we will have a legacy for future generations that will improve access for the public to the whole of the parliamentary estate and to the archives.
That is the third programme—the archives accommodation programme. I do not know whether any Members have been into the archives of late, but it is virtually impossible to get there; it is certainly very difficult for any members of the public to get there. The photograph room has never worked since it was first installed, and all the rolled Acts of Parliament, going back to the 14th century, could be far better stored than they are now. They are higgledy-piggledy; they are in time order, but should be far more carefully stored. However, that cannot really happen until such time as we have new provision.
We have also made an exemption—this is new for us—for any decisions made by the House in relation to reports that are being done. The most important example is the Dame Laura Cox report, which has already led to significant public interest, as people want to ensure that Parliament is a safe place for everybody to work and that there is no bullying or harassment. There are costs involved in delivering that review and we are keen to support that, and we will doubtless be keen to support whatever Gemma White QC comes up with, when her review is completed.
In addition, we have allocated £2.4 million for the Sponsor Board, which is up and running in shadow form. I see that one of its members—my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami)— is here in his less shadowy form; certainly his tie is less shadowy than it might be, as usual. The shadow Sponsor Board is up and running, and we are hopeful that it will be able to engage in its work as fast as possible. As I understand it, it is keen to speed up decisions, rather than delay. At the moment, we are talking about not leaving the Palace in the decant until 2026, but there are people who would like that to be brought forward to 2025 if it is physically possible.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the opening few minutes. I just want to emphasise the important point about driving things forward. This is not a vanity project: we are doing this work because the building is not safe as it is at the moment.
Chris Bryant
I completely concur with my right hon. Friend, who has been one of the key people seeking to drive this forward, in his role as a Whip and given his responsibility for Opposition accommodation. He is fully aware of the problems there have been throughout the Palace. The new fire doors are absolutely hideous, but they are essential. I am sure that when we get around to restoration and renewal we will have a version of them that performs the same function, but is more in keeping with the building. Finally, we have allocated £3.3 million of the administration budget to the restoration and renewal customer and client team, which builds the occupation for R and R when it comes online.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which are important to many hon. Members, are funded out of the resource aspect of the administration estimate, as is the History of Parliament Trust. We have tried to be as tough with each of those bodies as possible, to ensure that we are getting good value for money. The only comment I would make about the IPU and the CPA is that in many other Parliaments there is a foreign affairs department with a room to welcome guests from other Parliaments. It keeps a record of who has visited and where MPs have gone on visits. That is available to their foreign office. There is a kind of inventory of all the work that is being done on foreign affairs visits. That does not happen here.
We have a multiplicity of different Committees and all-party parliamentary groups, and all the rest of it. For example, I went to Colombia in September, courtesy of ABColombia. It would have been interesting to have seen which other Members had visited there over the last five years and good to have exchanged information with them before going. Keeping such records is not something that we do, but it is one of the things that we should look at for the future.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Other Parliaments often have friendship groups, as they call them, which are serviced by staff from their Parliament, so there is a continuity to the visits and a base in the Parliament where Members can be serviced, and information collected and retained. That simply does not happen in this country.
Chris Bryant
That is absolutely right. When—if—Brexit happens, it will be all the more important, in relation to other European countries, that Members of this House and the House of Lords will be seen as diplomats or ambassadors on behalf of Parliament. We need to garner the information, ideas and contacts that come through that in the national interest. I worry that we do not do that very well at the moment.
The capital elements of the administration estimate are quite significant. We are talking about £236.8 million. Some of the figures in the report that we have published are slightly different from the figures that we are talking about now, because this is an iterative process. In a sense, the reason for having this debate was to be able to inform those decisions as they go forward to the commission. The two largest elements of this relate to the major ongoing building projects. Of that, £117.4 million relates to the Strategic Estates projects. I think everybody on the Committee would say that we worry about the Strategic Estates. It is not just that the Elizabeth Tower started off at one price and ended up at a completely different price—incidentally, it ended up being a rather different project. With the stone courtyard project, the money we were allocating for all five courtyards has been taken up on one. I am sure that both the Labour party and Conservative party would have moaned about this, but we also decided to close the cloister—one of the most beautiful parts of the Palace—and move all the staff out more than 18 months ago, yet work has still not started on it, even though it desperately needs work.
Mark Tami
We were told at the time that those people had to leave because that work was essential and could not wait under any circumstances—it was quite an exercise to find somewhere else for those people—only to see it left empty, apart from some building materials that have been left there.
Chris Bryant
That is distressing and worrying. Apart from anything else, it is worrying because it is one of the most beautiful parts of the palace, which is hardly used or visited by the public. I hope that when restoration and renewal is complete we will not have destroyed the beautiful work that was done by Henry VII and Henry VIII. That would be a terrible sadness. The delay is down to capacity in the team and physical capacity on the site. It is not down to somebody being negligent in their job, or anything like that, but it is simply down to capacity. If we are unable to get that work done, there is a danger that we will lose one of the most important architectural aspects of the building.
It is not all bad. The cast-iron roofs project has been extraordinarily successful. It is on time and on budget. It is a massively impressive project. It has basically kept two companies in the north of England afloat over the last few years. The encaustic tiles project has been very successful as well. It is great to see the floors now being sorted out. It is also quite interesting to see people in the shop buying the old encaustic tiles that have been lifted up, thereby bringing a little bit of income back into the Palace as well. They are quite good Christmas presents, Mr Howarth. If you feel like buying one, you can buy me one.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to give me such advice.
Chris Bryant
All of us on the Committee have a fundamental worry that sometimes, because we have to meet Government pay scales and agreed limits, we end up paying for a lot of consultancy advice. That ends up creating more expense, but because it is sort of off the books, or is not accounted in the same way, somehow it meets some kind of Government requirement. I think this is a false economy. We are desperate to do whatever we can to ensure that we do not continue wasting taxpayers’ money in that way.
I should add that we are spending £88.8 million in the capital element of the administration estimate on the northern estate programme. It has been difficult to know when this money will be spent. That is one reason why it has been difficult to get the finances precisely right this year, because we did not know when we would be starting the work. If political decision-making causes delays, it adds to the cost. If the Minister has any role in making sure that key decisions come at the right time, and that we are not putting off votes, for instance—if she can chivvy the Leader of the House, or whoever makes such decisions—it would be enormously helpful to the finances of Parliament.
The Members estimate relates to Short money, which is available to make sure that Opposition parties can do their job properly. I am glad we won the battle a few years ago to make sure that is adequate. It also pays for the Deputy Speakers’ salaries and for the Exchequer elements of contributions to the pensions fund. It stands at £17.7 million, which is a little bit up from £17.1 million previously.
I will finish with a few general points. We on the Committee feel that we do not manage many of these processes well yet, so there is work to do. One issue about the Elizabeth tower, which I have already referred to, was that not enough investigative work was done before we started to let the contract. We then found out that the cables were not in the place that all the maps said they were, which incurred significant extra cost. We were also probably too optimistic about what it was going to cost. We now have a much better estimate of our optimism bias, although I have a slight worry that if we are too pessimistic, that will simply be an excuse for spending more money than we needed to in the first place. It is a difficult balancing act.
Another issue was that, in the end, the contract for the Elizabeth tower was let when there was no Parliament. Everybody ran around asking, “Who made the decision?”, but the truth is that it was taken somewhere between the Commission, which still existed because it is a statutory body, the Treasury, the Leader of the House and the accounting officer, who is the Clerk of the House. We need to have much greater continuity when we have general elections. To not have a Finance Committee for the best part of six months is a mistake. There is a strong argument for putting the Finance Committee on a statutory footing, as the Commission is, so it can still exist even when there is no Parliament, because financial decisions still have to be made.
Mark Tami
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I have served on the Finance Committee and the Administration Committee. We sometimes concentrate on small items that cost very little, and scrutinise them to the nth degree, yet no one is quite sure who actually signed off a massive project.
Chris Bryant
Yes; I never want to have the debate on whether we should put 3p or 5p on the price of a cup of tea ever again.
Chris Bryant
I am led by the Committee. It is a serious point that we sometimes obsess about small amounts of money, but, for example, it looks as if the fire safety budget will have gone from £90 million to £160 million, and it is perfectly legitimate to ask who made that decision and at what point a decision was made by a Committee of the House or by the accounting officer. If we cannot match responsibility and accountability, there is a real danger that financial mistakes will be made and significant amounts of money will go in the wrong direction.
I have already made the point, but I want to labour it, that we are too bound by Government pay scales. That has made it difficult to pay the right price to get the job done in one of the most complicated and difficult buildings and in the context of the most complicated and difficult political decision-making processes. Many staff who work here are admirable—they dedicate themselves to their task as much as any Member of Parliament and work many hours beyond what they are required to do—but, all too often, we end up bringing in experts on consultancy rates and paying more than we need to simply because we are trying to meet the Treasury’s rules. That is a mistake.
I worry that the building swamps the work financially. We are talking about spending dramatic amounts of money on the building, but what is really important here is the scrutiny work that we do, the public coming to understand how we do our democratic business and the engagement with the public. There are major projects that should be slanted much more towards the public.
A classic instance is that, of late, people have regularly queued for an hour or two hours—often standing in the pouring rain—to get into the building to watch democracy in action. We simply have to do better on such projects. I have heard lots of different explanations. Sometimes I am told that it is because one of the security arches is not working, or that people are working to rule because they are fed up with decisions that have been made elsewhere in the Palace—who knows? All I know is that the public feel they are getting a pretty rum deal. They are often late for meetings that they are coming to in Parliament. This should be an open place, not one that is almost impossible to get into.
Mark Tami
I certainly agree. After many years of using the Palace, some organisations are questioning whether they will carry on, because of the inability to get people in. After restoration and renewal, we are talking about doubling the number of people who come here, but there is no point having ambitious targets if we cannot get people in safely and more quickly.
Chris Bryant
As always, my right hon. Friend makes my point better than me, so I am grateful.
Finally, the structure is not quite right. It has been some time since the Commission was put on a statutory basis after the Straw review. The Leader of the House is keen to look at having the Commission elected, which I support; I would have the whole Commission fully elected to do a job. It would then function more like a traditional Select Committee and more like a team. That would be a good way to go forward, rather than the process we have now, in which all the members of the Commission are appointed by their respective party leaders, and then there are two external members, who are often the most informed and independently-minded on all the financial aspects but, bizarrely, are not allowed to vote. That system needs to change.
I have already said “finally”, but I will say it again: finally, if anything I have said has given the impression that I am not respectful of the Clerks or the people who work for the Committee, that would be a complete mistake. Myfanwy Barrett is a wonderful woman who has done a sterling job for many years. It is an enormous sadness to us that she is leaving—but who knows, maybe we will be buying in her consultancy advice later at a much greater price.
Chris Bryant
I do not want to turn the debate into the Oscars, but I also thank Philip Collins, who has done a magnificent job for us, and Rob Cope, who is our Committee Clerk.
We have done things differently in the last few months. We are keen to make sure that the Commission regularly hears our voice before it makes decisions about key financial matters. In the end, we are spending taxpayers’ money and we should do it better.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on clearly putting forward the case and on bringing the report to the Chamber. We are deeply indebted to him for his knowledge and interest in the House, and for his delivery of speeches. The low number of hon. Members present does not reflect the importance of the debate or of the issue. This is not the most dynamic subject, but it keeps the wheels turning, so we need to at least record our support for what has been proposed. I also put on the record my thanks to every member of the Finance Committee for the tremendous work they have done to produce the report.
I will discuss a few issues that I feel are important, one of which is security. I want to reflect on my own offices and the budget for them, including for security. For a number of years—since 1985 and for two years after I became a Member of Parliament—I ran my own business, and somewhat successfully, in that I made my tax returns and paid my tax every year. It was therefore a successful business. It also paid for my holidays and my mortgage over the years. I fully understand the importance of balancing the books. I also understand that we cannot plan for everything, and the hon. Gentleman’s introductory comments about the report clearly illustrated that things crop up. The courtyard is one example that he referred to, whereby the costs for one thing took up the money that was supposed to look after five, so again we see the problems that occur.
I have been made aware by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that my staff would benefit from greater security measures in my constituency office, and I was also informed that the costs for that would be met from an additional budget. How it was to be done was very clear. If every MP was faced with a scenario in which they had to implement new security measures, the cost would be great indeed.
I have discussed with my staff which measures we believe to be necessary, and which can be resolved by small changes that make a big difference in increasing safety levels in the office and in operating a clear zero-tolerance policy on verbal abuse of staff. However, most of my staff are ladies and are unafraid of anybody and stand up for themselves. I might be their boss, but I know my place in life and although I give them instructions about what to do, they tell me what they think. There is nothing wrong with that; there is a good, fair and clear exchange on how things are. However, it is my responsibility to address any safety concerns and over the years I have tried to do that; indeed, I believe that I have done that to their satisfaction.
How much more was that the case for this place in dealing with the breach of Westminster Bridge, which was a direct attack on Parliament and which the hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned? We all know that; the attack is clear in the minds of those of us who sat imprisoned in the main Chamber during that time. I will advocate day and night for resources for security to ensure that this place is as safe as is possible, not simply for us as MPs but for every staff member in this House, who turn the wheels and ensure that this House operates at a very high level.
For that reason, I believe we must be fully accountable for, and transparent in, expenditure, and the general public must be made to understand that the money to run the parliamentary estate is not spent on giving us all our own butler. The report says:
“The Administration Estimate funds expenditure arising from the general administration of the House of Commons and activities undertaken to meet Parliament’s objectives and associated commercial activities. This includes, for example, the cost of House staff, office accommodation in Westminster, running and maintaining the Parliamentary estate, printing, security, broadcasting, IT and catering.”
All those activities turn the wheels and make this House successful. However, we must be able to address security issues as well.
The other issue I will raise is the House’s decision to support the comprehensive restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, which has resulted in a significant ramping-up of activity over the course of the year. Along with the resource implications of other capital projects, such as the northern estate programme, it has resulted in a net increase of £85.5 million on the 2019-20 baseline that was agreed last year.
We understand the issues, but sometimes we are stuck betwixt two things: improving the House and making sure that it does not decay further, while at the same time making sure that we can still operate in it. That is the big question that the Members of this House have to answer.
The fire doors are an example. I met a lady this morning at nine o’clock for an interview that I was doing. We went through the fire doors and she said, “When did these come into place?” The hon. Member for Rhondda referred to them as well. They are not the most attractive, to be honest, but they are effective; they have a job to do and they clearly do it. The safety of those in this House is very important. The House of Commons is crumbling in parts, including its stonework, plumbing, electrics and much else, but at the same time we must ensure that we can continue to operate in this House.
If we are to save this wonderful piece of history, and my opinion is that we must secure this massive attraction and physical bastion of democracy—or at least that was my opinion until last night’s antics, which have thrown everything into question about whether we are truly democratic in this House. However, that is not the debate for today—although what happened last night does annoy every one of us, and if people are not annoyed, there is something wrong. That is all I can say. However, that is another debate for another time.
It is my belief that we should withhold the voluntary divorce payment to Europe and take care of our own pressing needs in this place. Again, that is just my suggestion for this debate and how I feel.
Many others in this House feel the same way. I did not sit on the Committee but, as Members will know, I take an interest in the things that happen in this House. I take an interest in the report that the hon. Member for Rhondda has put forward and I am also interested in all the thoughts and ideas put forward by all the members of the Committee.
To conclude, I support this report and its recommendations, as well as the thought and effort that went into bringing it forward. There is a need for enough funds for it to be implemented, but there must also be enough funds to ensure that all of us, at every level and in every Department in this House, economise in every way, when that is possible. I am an Ulster Scot. Some people say that every pound is a prisoner. Maybe it is; I do not know, but we are thrifty. We are careful about how we spend our money. When it comes to looking after the money for this place, we must economise where possible, and do what we expect everyone out there to do, who are doing it every day—stretch the pound until it squeals.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
As always, Mr Howarth, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I came to Westminster Hall today hoping to be presented with a long-service award; I think that I have been on the Finance Committee since the 2005 Parliament. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who is not here today, has been an assiduous member of that Committee and I think that he has been on it, too, for most of that time. Collectively, we have quite a good memory as to how things used to happen, and I will come back to that in a minute.
It is absolutely right that we should have this debate. As said by the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), there has been a gap in having a debate to which all Members can contribute. Next year, we can hopefully go back to having the debate on the Floor of the House, with an amendable motion, hopefully to get more interest from colleagues. That is where we set off and it would be helpful again in the future. The problems around renovation and restoration, including the decision making on it and the complexity that programme has introduced to the budget process, have somewhat handicapped us this year, but I hope we can get back to that arrangement in the future.
I also echo what the Chair of the Committee said when he asked why we need two estimates. When Members estimates dealt with all Members’ expenditure—their expenses, as they are often referred to—one could perhaps understand why there was a need for two estimates. Now, however, that work is carried out by IPSA and the Members estimate is such a small amount that it needs to be absorbed, so that we can get away from the need for two separate sets of accounts.
The Chair has also gone through some of the issues that the Committee has been dealing with, but thinking back to when I joined the Committee in the 2005 to 2010 Parliament, what is remarkable now is that we actually have a budget. Believe it or not, we did not have one then. If I said that the finances of the House were run worse than those of the most inefficient district council, I would be exaggerating—I would say the most inefficient town council. It was that bad.
Money got spent, nobody properly accounted for it and there was no proper monitoring. What we have now is a budget agreed each year, which is clear. We monitor against the budget; we have a forward plan; we have a framework for the budget, including criteria in which we lay down what is acceptable in terms of increases for future years, based on inflation, plus any exemptions that are brought forward, such as the Brexit Committee, increased scrutiny or security; and we have an efficiency programme as well.
There have also been efforts to raise extra income, which have been successful in many respects, through catering. We have also tried to bear down on costs. I think that we will have the lowest ever subsidy for catering this year and that is entirely reasonable. We put some subsidy in, because the catering by and large is used by the staff who work in this place, and any reasonable and responsible employer would provide that degree of subsidy for people who do not have a choice about where they eat, particularly at lunchtime.
We should recognise that all those things are a great improvement. By and large, I am pretty comfortable that we are in a good place with the revenue budget. There will be arguments, challenges and disagreements about particular amounts of money, the exemptions to expenditure control and whether efficiencies are going quickly enough, and it is absolutely right that we bear down and put extra pressure on those issues. By and large, however, I think we are in a reasonable place, and can justifiably say, and be content with the fact, that the budget is well managed and scrutinised.
On the capital programme, the situation is not quite as rosy. We can go through a number of the examples that have been highlighted. All the time, we have the challenge of getting to grips with exactly what is going on with some major projects. Hopefully, we now have systems in place that are learning lessons from past mistakes, but we can go around and see the evidence, can’t we? At some stage, there is a story to be told about the Portcullis House roof. I have always said that if someone wanted a page in The Mail on Sunday on that roof, they would probably get at least two pages and a colour supplement to match. It is not right yet, is it? It will be even more interesting when we come to replace it. How will it be replaced? It needs replacing at some point. That fundamental issue was not thought of when the roof was designed and constructed. No one here now is to blame, but there are clearly lessons to be learned.
On the Elizabeth Tower, hopefully lessons are being learned. Ultimately, the work probably needed to be done. It is probably the right project, and what is being done now is value for money, but how we got here is not a good example. We have the fire safety work. Again, it needed to be done, but how we got to the sum is not a good example of financial control. There are the problems with the stonework, and the contracts that have now been suspended, following all the difficulties that have been experienced. Then there is the contract for the sprinkler systems that went with the fire safety. There, again, is a story about how a project was designed and controlled. It does not make happy reading. There are lessons to be learned.
On the other side, we simply must accept that there will always be difficulties and challenges when dealing with this type of building. The very fact that every time we set off on a project it is almost certainly a one-off—it will not have been done for many years, and hundreds in some cases—and we will find things we did not expect. The unexpected will always happen. We are in a listed historic building with lots of construction workers around, and Members of Parliament and the public want security. It will never be easy to do construction work in this place. That is a reality, so it will probably never be possible to absolutely nail down the cost of a project right at the beginning and to know where we will get to at the end. We will find new issues and challenges and it will be difficult, but there are lessons we must learn, and be shown to learn, if we are to retain the confidence that public money is being properly spent.
I echo the comments of the Chair of the Finance Committee about the issue of paying staff properly for this sort of work—I have gone on about it ad nauseam, I know. It is a problem. The reality is that in certain areas—construction and IT systems—we are competing with the private sector in London. There is great pressure for those services and we end up bringing in contractors and agency staff and paying more than we would if we appointed people to the House service. In the end, it is a matter of being more flexible about the rules within which we have to operate, regarding the comparison between our pay grades and those of the civil service. That is a challenge we must recognise, and the unions have brought it to our attention. That is not in any way to denigrate the other people who work in the House—exactly the opposite. The Chair of the Finance Committee is absolutely right that we should give them great credit for the service they give us, right across the field, and for their dedication to working for the House, for us and for democracy. That should be put on record.
There have been comments about R and R and the northern estate and I will not go into what has already been said, but I am concerned about the considerable complications of the shadow R and R arrangements. The little draft diagrams about decision making under the arrangements are very challenging indeed. I also sit on the Members Estimate Audit Committee, and the other day I asked the National Audit Office whether, if there were a problem with the shadow R and R arrangements, it could be certain, as our auditor, of identifying where responsibility and accountability lay. I think it would be hard pushed to do that. It has gone away to consider it, but it is a worry, and we are heading for problems if we set up a system in which we cannot point with absolute certainty to where decisions are made and accountability rests. Everyone always blames everyone else when something goes wrong, so there is a challenge there that we ought to think about. I do not know how to get around it, because until we get to the final stage of the statutory arrangements it is very difficult indeed, but the shorter the period of shadow arrangement the better, and the less chance of things going wrong.
I have two final points. I first thank the Chair of the Finance Committee for how he has chaired the Committee this year. We perhaps set off with a different idea of who the Chair should be, but I nevertheless thank him for the inclusive way in which he has run the Committee. We have worked together to address some of the issues and I put on record my thanks to him. Also, the Chair rightly mentioned Myfanwy Barrett, who is leaving us. I have worked with her with various hats on, on the Finance Committee, as a pension trustee on the House of Commons Members’ fund, and on the Audit Committee, and she appears at all these meetings to give us very appropriate and sound advice. I talked initially about how we used to do finance in this place and how we now have proper systems in place, and much of the credit for that goes to Myfanwy. She has changed the system and brought us into line, with proper arrangements with which appropriately to run the finances of this place. We can all be pleased about that. I am sorry she is going, but I wish her well and thank her for what she has done for us. No doubt there will be opportunities to thank her again in Committee, but this is probably the only chance we will get in the wider forum of Parliament, so I would like to put that on record.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
I suspect that members of the Finance Committee will be wondering, “Who on earth is this guy? He isn’t the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts”. I bring the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who had hoped to be here but has had to remain in Scotland due to family illness. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of us here in Westminster when I wish him well.
When I spoke to my hon. Friend last night, he said he was grateful to me for taking on this speaking commitment about “one of the driest Committees in the House”, but I have to say that having sat through the debate, I have often found myself saying, “Be still my beating heart”. I sit on the Procedure Committee, so this is positively exciting—I might speak to my chief Whip to see whether I can get a swap. In all honesty, I am grateful to the Finance Committee for its report, which was very illuminating at 1 o’clock this morning when I read it. I will touch on that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is absolutely right about the need to be diligent about how we spend taxpayers’ money, and that the scrutiny of the process in the past has been less than satisfactory. Wearing my Procedure Committee hat, I know that there are issues with how Committees are set up—particularly after general elections, when the scrutiny is not there. The public look to us, as Members of Parliament, to lead that scrutiny. It takes several months at a time to get Committees up and running, and that is a very different context from that of the Finance Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.
The hon. Gentleman was also absolutely right to pay tribute to the Clerks and the House staff, who do a magnificent job—I know he intended to do that, although it came towards the end of his speech. I certainly felt that yesterday, when watching the chief Clerk chairing what was a very volatile day. We really do get our money’s worth out of those guys. The hon. Gentleman was right to place that on the record.
I shall sum up the contributions. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about security and the importance of looking after our staff, not just in our constituency offices but here in the Palace—the staff here are the real heroes of the House. He went on to speak about restoration and renewal, which I will touch on, and he said that perhaps some of the issues could be solved if we withheld our payment from Europe. I am not necessarily sure he will find agreement from me on that.
I was not aware that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) had been on the Committee since 2005. If my heart is beating very fast from just one debate, goodness knows what that amount of time serving on the Committee does for the soul. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of learning from past mistakes, and had some fairly sage advice in regard to Portcullis House.
That brings me nicely to my own contributions to the debate. I have looked at the front page of the report and seen the draft estimates, or the financial plan to 2022-23. As a Scottish National party Member of Parliament, I make no apology for not intending to be here in 2023. That is not because I plan to lose my seat; it is because the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) and I will be surplus to requirements, because Scotland will be an independent country and we will not need Members of Parliament down here. Perhaps that would be a good way of saving money.
The Minister is in her place; I have a standing engagement with her on Wednesday mornings, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) is trying valiantly to bring through a Bill that would stop the Government from reducing the number of Members from 650 to 600. It is interesting that the report talks about increased scrutiny throughout, whereas the Government are trying to reduce that scrutiny. Page 10 talks about what is probably the biggest elephant in the room: the decision to leave the European Union—well, it is not an elephant in the room, because we are all talking about it. We can clearly see that the implementation of that decision has an impact on the budgets in the report.
There are certain things for which the Scottish National party would clearly support increased budgets, some of which I have touched on, including security and perhaps the independent grievance process. However, I am accountable to my constituents back home, and I find myself talking to them about this place and the eye-watering sums being committed to restoration and renewal. The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about building a replica Chamber; the fact that we are building a Chamber that looks exactly the same as the current one when that Chamber is so unfit for purpose sends a clear signal to ordinary members of the public.
We are recreating Division Lobbies that we can troop through. People regularly come to this place on tours, and I explain to them how we conduct our votes, walking through corridors—I mean, what an absolute waste of time! It is great that we have invested in the education centre, but the ironic thing is that when the children there cast their votes, they do so using an electronic keypad. How much time is wasted by the fact that we have Clerks sitting in the House for numerous votes as we walk around and around?
Chris Bryant
I sympathise with some of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman is making, particularly because at the moment, as I understand it, one in 10 Division lists is wrong. The new system is more difficult to use than the old paper system, although I am not arguing in favour of going back to the paper system. I like us gathering in the Lobbies, as it means we have an opportunity to see Ministers and all the rest, but by now we should be able to use our thumbs or our fingerprints to vote in the Division Lobbies, as we do for our phones, and still be counted through by the Tellers.
David Linden
I have a huge admiration for the hon. Gentleman. He is one of the great custodians of the traditions of this House, and there is a place for respecting those. He has spoken about being in the Lobbies with Ministers as a great thing, but I can think of probably only one occasion when I have been in a Lobby with Ministers. As an Opposition MP, it makes not a jot of difference to me, because I am seldom in a Lobby with a Government Minister.
We have to think about how we are spending money. There has been some chat about the new fire doors that have been put in place; I managed to provoke a degree of ridicule—based on my part, largely—a couple of months ago when I had an interaction with the Chair of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who could not understand what I was saying. The point I was making was about disability access in this place.
We have just spent what was presumably a lot of money on upstanding fire alarms. I gather that the reason for that is the wiring in this place, but now a person cannot turn a corner in the main Palace because of these obstructive upstanding fire alarms. In one respect, we send strong signals about this place being fine for somebody with a disability, yet because we are trying to adhere to the customs of this place we have those ridiculous, massive alarms, which I suspect came at great cost.
I was speaking about restoration and renewal. I make no apology for the fact that I would be quite happy to see us decanted to a sports centre in Milton Keynes, although I know that, for some people, being on the banks of the Thames and in the big House of Commons is a status symbol.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about decanting to a sports centre in Milton Keynes. Would he be happy with decanting the Scottish Parliament to a sports centre in Glasgow or Perth? Of course, the construction of that building went 10 times over its planned budget. Rather than disrespecting the Parliament of our country—which it still is, unless the hon. Gentleman gets his way—he should focus on scrutiny, to make sure money is spent in the right way so that this Parliament is the most accessible Parliament for all the peoples of the United Kingdom.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I think it is best if we stick to the terms of the motion.
David Linden
I am very happy to stick to your guidance, Mr Howarth, and will not take any gratification from having managed to provoke a PPS into speaking from the Back Benches. The reality is that I would be happy for us to meet in Glasgow, Edinburgh or Liverpool. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire is fond of saying that this is the United Kingdom Parliament, but it seems to me that we are very London-centric, and some of these cost issues arise because we are so determined to be in the absolute centre of London.
I have already mentioned security issues; the hon. Member for Rhondda touched on some concerns, and I would echo some of them. There is clearly a focus on making sure that our security is very strong. I probably feel most secure when I am here in the Palace of Westminster; I feel a lot less secure when I am sitting in Baillieston library—that is not necessarily concern for my security, but for that of the staff who are with me. I am very happy to endorse the security budget.
I did not intend to speak for nine or 10 minutes, but it is possible to go down a rabbit warren on this subject, and it does get quite interesting. I will close by saying that at a time when austerity is not over, and our constituents are struggling with austerity, we need to be mindful about the decisions we make. As a fairly new Member of this House, I am not always convinced that we get value for money. Nevertheless, in all sincerity, I pay tribute to the Finance Committee for carrying out a job that I am sure can be very dry, but is none the less very important.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Much like the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), I came rather late to the honour of responding to this debate, and found myself at a late hour on Monday evening doing something completely different than I had planned. However, like him, I have found the debate fascinating, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for leading it.
At the outset, I will highlight some areas of success. We often talk about areas of failure when we talk about such topics, but there have been areas of success over the last few years. However, I will first pick up on an area of great concern: the absence of a Finance Committee over a six-month period during an election period. I think that is something that we would like to hear about from the Minister.
As a lifelong NHS bureaucrat, I have had to come to some documents quite late in time. Yesterday evening, when I was given the report, I first turned to the appendix to see whether anything was hidden in there. True to form, in the planning for 2019-20 on page 11, in the high-level planning assumptions, the first thing I read was this:
“The political temperature is high and this may spill over into other areas”.
I trust that the Minister will be able to outline to us how she sees that working over the next couple of years.
I welcome the opportunity to debate these estimates, because as I said, I spent my previous life as an NHS manager, and I am also a former member of the Public Accounts Committee. In our public services and on the Public Accounts Committee, we expect public bodies to behave to the highest standards. We expect them to demonstrate good financial planning, monitoring and accountability, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, also to demonstrate value for money. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is a local government expert. Across the land, we expect our councils to demonstrate value for money, so it is imperative that we do so in this place.
We know that over the next few years Parliament faces a number of significant policy matters and events that will have a bearing on the budget. They include Brexit, restoration and renewal, the refurbishment of the northern estate, the review of the parliamentary archives accommodation, the implementation of the digital strategy, the significant increase in the employers’ pension contribution, pay and reward strategy beyond the current pay deal, enhancing security around the parliamentary estate, and developing cyber-security and technology infrastructure. It is quite a list.
The House debated and voted on restoration and renewal in January, and we would all agree that the Palace of Westminster is in need of restoration and renewal and that a number of issues need to be resolved. We have agreed the decant ahead of the refurbishment work and the work going on with the sponsor body, as we heard earlier. Anyone who has visited the basements and the full extent of this place will know how urgent that work is. A couple of years ago, I had the great pleasure of visiting to look at those places. The conditions in which we are expecting people to operate to service this place and make it work are unacceptable. It is vital that that work continues.
Anyone who knows the history of when Mr Barry and Mr Pugin were doing the original work on this place will know that restoration and renewal is a huge project for the country that will elicit great interest, and it needs to be done properly. We have a massive opportunity for skills development, for apprenticeships, for good employment practices and for reviving great skills that have been lost in this country. We need to be an exemplar not only for the country, but for the world in how the work can be done to make this Parliament fit for the 21st and 22nd century, although we may lose the hon. Member for Glasgow East and his colleagues. Jobs and skills can be developed in Bristol, the Rhondda, Sheffield, Northern Ireland and Scotland. There is a massive opportunity for our country, and I would like to see us do that.
Chris Bryant
We have not discussed this important point in our Committee—it is important for the R and R project—but there will be an enormous shortage of staff, in particular to do some of the craft functions that will be needed around the building. We should be setting up parliamentary building apprenticeships in large numbers and ensuring that there are academies across the country so that every different constituency in the land has some investment in the restoration and renewal project.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful for that intervention. After I visited a couple of years ago, I did a report in my local newspaper on that very subject. There is great interest in our cities, regions and rural areas in some of the skills that have been lost. We can see when we visit those facilities—I remember seeing it in Sheffield—that in the past people could demonstrate pride in their work and imprint that in this place. It would be magnificent to see young people and older people throughout the country develop those skills and then bring them here to do that work, and there is great interest in that. It is about how we manage that positively but also, critically, demonstrate that we are doing so on a good cost basis and with value for money.
Security and access to the estate are important. Changes to the estate as a result of restoration and renewal and the northern estate programme will require additional resources and security measures. We all have strong memories of the March 2017 attack. A number of security projects have arisen from the Murphy review following that attack. We note that that work is due to be completed by summer 2021, but cyber-security remains a high risk. We know that from last week. The House will continue to face cost pressures from that, but security is critical to the work we do here.
The medium-term financial plan should enable the House service to support Parliament, deliver our specific objectives and demonstrate how the service will become increasingly effective and efficient over time. The strategy is currently being refreshed and the three existing strategic objectives are expected to be expanded to four: facilitating effective scrutiny and debate, involving and inspiring the public, securing Parliament’s future, and valuing every person. Those are important objectives.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is talking about an important subject, and it is important that it is recorded in the debate. The traditions, history and procedures we have in the House are perhaps unique to this place, but they have been the inspiration for many other democracies across the world. I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred to that. It is so important that we retain those things in the House. We are a modern society, but we should also keep our traditions for democracies across the whole world.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I enjoy the traditions, and I agree in large part that they are important, but the evolution of new traditions is also important. I have visited the Scottish Parliament building and the Welsh Assembly this year. I have also been to Stormont twice. It was fairly quiet, but the building is magnificent, as are the others. I take on board the issue about cost, but we should be evolving by learning from all parts of the United Kingdom about how they are operating in a more modern setting. I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda talk about the learning from Parliaments across the world. There has to be a way of preserving some of those traditions while making them work for the later part of the 21st century and into the 22nd century, which none of us will be here for. I hope we can bequeath something good to those who follow.
The investment plan sets out the bicameral plans for investment in strategic programmes, estates and digital. As we have heard, the bulk of that work is split into three areas: work on the Elizabeth Tower and fire safety, which is something we all would welcome; work on the northern estate; and the restoration and renewal programme, which we have talked about. I echo the comments made previously. It is important that that work is transparent and that we understand how it is happening. I am slightly alarmed to hear some of the comments about how projects are managed and the difficulty the Committee has had in following some of the decision making and the finances. These are substantial projects and we need to be assured that they are being well planned and monitored and are value for money. I agree that discussion at least annually is valuable. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why that could not happen.
On the Public Accounts Committee, we visited the Major Projects Authority, which is part of the Cabinet Office, as the Minister will be well aware. The learning and understanding of how to manage major projects is great within parts of government. There needs to be a way of taking the learning from places such as the Major Projects Authority and the work going on in the Cabinet Office and making it applicable to the work of this place. It is not acceptable that we ask other people, other public bodies and spenders of taxpayers’ money to operate in one way and then we operate in another. Although I am late to it, I am slightly alarmed that that does not seem to be happening. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said about looking at the role of the National Audit Office. Its reports on decision making and accountability are very clear and easy to follow. If the NAO cannot find its way through it, something is clearly wrong.
In concluding, I thank all the staff who are involved in all aspects of the work to make this place operate. I thank members of the Finance Committee for publishing this report, for the important work they do behind the scenes, which most of us perhaps do not see, and for their diligence in bringing that work before us this morning. The Opposition support the recommendations of the Finance Committee and welcome the chance to debate and scrutinise this report.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I am sure that this cannot make up the full set of all those who were reading this report late last night in preparation for this morning’s debate. I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today, and I am pleased to be here to participate in this important debate on the House of Commons financial plan and draft estimates.
I apologise straight away that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not here. By rights, she should be responding to this debate. I am happy to be here in her place, and I know she spoke last week to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Finance Committee, to explain that she would not be able to be here today. She would like me to convey her apologies again this morning. She will be following the debate very closely through Hansard, and I will ensure that key points are brought to her attention.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Westminster Hall debate. I pay tribute to his hard work in chairing the Finance Committee and his dedication to the work on the finances for this place. I also thank him for his work with the Government in the cross-cutting parts of the draft estimates where work needs to be done in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, she has asked me to thank the Finance Committee for its report, which represents the Committee’s provisional advice to the Commission, and the Members Estimate Committee for the 2019-20 to 2022-23 medium-term financial plan and the 2019-20 Administration and Members estimates. I am absolutely sure that she and all other members of the Commission and of the Estimate Committee will want carefully to consider the points made by Members today. I am also sure that they will want to carefully consider the thanks that have been expressed to the staff of the Committee and connected teams.
The Government continue to support a well-run House of Commons and share its drive to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the service. A high-quality service in support of Members’ duties is integral to the success and strength of our democracy and supporting processes. It is vital that all of us—Members and their staff, staff of the House, and the public—see that this House is committed to the delivery of a service that is both first class and excellent value for money. Today’s debate invites the House to consider those issues.
The purpose of the debate is to give Members the opportunity to comment on the advice before it is finalised, as the hon. Member for Rhondda set out in his opening statement. This annual debate on the draft estimates began in the previous Parliament and took place in 2012, 2013 and 2014 in the main Chamber: a point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). It subsequently fell into abeyance and so this is the first debate of its type in this Parliament. I know that the Chair of the Finance Committee submitted this as a Backbench Business debate, so we are here in Westminster Hall, but I hear the point about how it ought to be held in the Chamber. Perhaps that can be considered for the future. The fact that we are having this debate is to be welcomed because it allows the issues to be properly looked at in addition to the work of the Committees involved.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who spoke on behalf of the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Sheffield South East for their contributions, in addition to the Chair of the Committee for setting out the issues.
A question was asked about why the two estimates are separate. It derives from legislation, so it could be regarded as a shared responsibility between the House and the Executive. It was argued that the two estimates could be combined, and there might be value in doing so. I understand that trying to merge them was the subject of a private Member’s Bill in 2016, when points were made on both sides of the argument. However, there was a desire from the Treasury to be able to continue to offer the right level of scrutiny and support to the House of Commons to be able to manage the expenditure, which would not be possible if the two estimates were merged. I am happy to ask colleagues to look further at those issues, which are not in my current brief.
Chloe Smith
Indeed. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to come back to the Chair of the Committee on that point so that it can be made clear.
On the question about the statutory footing of the Finance Committee compared with that which the House of Commons Commission enjoys, the Commission’s statutory footing gives it the authority that it needs to make the decisions that we ask of it, whereas the Finance and Administration Committees are advisory bodies. Clearly, there would need to be some consultation across the House to be able properly to scope such a decision to put those two advisory bodies on to a statutory footing. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is keen to see a more democratic governance structure, which goes back to a point that was also made during the debate. I think she will listen carefully to the points made today and will wish to come back to the Chair of the Committee on that point about the statutory footing.
Chris Bryant
I kind of get that the Finance Committee is advisory, as is the Administration Committee, but the only gritty examination of the finances is done by my Committee. I previously sat on the Commission and it simply does not have the time to devote to finances because it deals with hundreds of other issues, so it would be in our long-term interests to change that pattern. Also indicative is the fact that not a single member of the Commission is here today. I have no beef with either the shadow Leader of the House or the Leader of the House. I know they are busy in shadow Cabinet and Government Cabinet. I fully understand that, but it is not great when not a single member of the Commission is here.
Chloe Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting those points on the record today. It is helpful that this debate has taken place so that that can be done. I will absolutely make sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House responds and discusses the issues with him so that they get proper scrutiny.
On the question of how frequently the Committee has been able to meet and how frequently the debate has been able to take place, there is a general point about how quickly Select Committees can be set up in any new Parliament, and of course the Government wish to see that done as quickly as possible and would support promptness in that setting up. Again, I shall ask my right hon. Friend to look at that point.
There are two remaining points to deal with. One is that of Government pay scales being too restrictive to allow work to be done properly. I suspect that that sits in the discussions that need to take place on restoration and renewal rather than in this debate. Once again I will ensure that my right hon. Friend hears what has been said today. As a general point on the pay scales, they exist to try to get consistency across the public sector and value for money for the taxpayer, which are well understood and respected points. However, I hear what has been said today about the specialisms sometimes required in the work that needs to be done within restoration and renewal.
The hon. Member for Bristol South was very kind to acknowledge the good work done by the Major Projects Authority. I thank her for that and will pass it on to colleagues in my Department. She suggested that expertise could be shared and I will be happy to see what can be done on that.
On some other areas more generally that I know the Leader of the House would want me to touch on, the first is restoration and renewal. The Finance Committee’s report explains that the primary reason for the difference between this year’s and last year’s MTFP is because of the House’s decision earlier this year to support comprehensive restoration and renewal of the Palace. I know that the Leader of the House has been determined to get on with that job, and the Government published the draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill in October, to give effect to the resolutions passed earlier this year.
The Bill will facilitate Parliament’s decision to set up a sponsor board and delivery authority to progress the comprehensive programme of works. It has been developed in close consultation with the House authorities and will, I hope, put in place the rigorous and transparent governance structure that we need to drive that work forward, while ensuring that we focus on value for money for the taxpayer. There cannot be a blank cheque for the work; the Government and Parliament agree that it must represent good value for money. We look forward to the report from the Joint Committee that is currently considering the draft Bill.
Following the work taken forward on a cross-party basis and led by the Leader of the House on bullying and harassment, the Government strongly welcome the provisions made, which are represented in the report, to support the introduction of the new independent complaints and grievance scheme. That is important to ensure better training, new human resources support and, crucially, the two new independent helplines and investigative services that underpin the new behaviour code. That is essential to ensure that we are supporting those who experience bullying or harassment, and to change the culture here in Westminster for the good, and for good.
I thank colleagues who have contributed to the debate, and emphasise just how useful it is for members of the commission and the Members Estimate Committee. Present or otherwise, I am sure that they will look at the debate carefully in Hansard. We can all agree that ensuring responsible and sustainable delivery of services for the House, while allowing for efficiency and value for money, is essential. I again thank the hon. Member for Rhondda, and I will ensure, as I have already undertaken, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is made aware of today’s contributions.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed. I will respond to a few points, but first I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts); since my back was patted, I want to pat his too. The Finance Committee is not necessarily the Committee that one expects to join when one arrives in Parliament, but ensuring that we properly scrutinise our finances is one of the most important things that we do as MPs. It is not something that the House of Lords can do; we are there to do it, and we are therefore an important Committee. I am grateful for the longevity of my hon. Friend’s service. That always makes him grimace, because he thinks that I am paying tribute to him beyond the grave.
Chris Bryant
No, not quite. Anyway, I am grateful.
I will respond to some of the earlier comments about R&R, or whether we should value this building or go off to a park in Milton Keynes—people always choose Milton Keynes. The problem with the argument for moving out of here and going somewhere else entirely is that because our system has the Executive within the Parliament we would effectively have to take the whole of Government with us as well.
I know that people argue, as I have myself sometimes, that Britain is far too London-centric, and that too much of the economy is focused on London and the south-east. However, the truth is that moving the whole of Government out of London to some other place, building some massive building, buying an enormous site and then providing accommodation for all those people would be more expensive than staying here, not least because this is a world heritage site. It is one of the most recognisable buildings in the world. We would still have to maintain it, even if we were going to hand it over to someone else anyway.
There would therefore be no cost saving. There may be political arguments, which I do not share, about the Union from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), and about other elements. However, in the end I do not think that there is any real alternative that is financially advantageous to the taxpayer that involves moving us out of the Palace in the long run. The hon. Gentleman also said that we will build a Chamber exactly like the one we have at present. There may be many good reasons for changing the way in which we do our business, but restoration and renewal is not one of them.
If we want to make changes, that is perfectly within the will of the House, but it is up to the House to make those decisions, rather than to have them foisted upon us because of some kind of building project. As I understand it, the Clerks are already working on IT so that we will be able to vote in the Division Lobbies with our thumbprints or fingerprints, instead of having to walk through and tell them our names and all the rest of it.
As for the main substance of today’s debate, it is important that we scrutinise the finances of the House. They are not the biggest numbers in all Government expenditure, but they are very significant numbers, and over the next few years they will grow rapidly. One of the concerns of our Committee is that there is not much transparency about where decisions are made and whether they have been good decisions. As we move into the process of restoration and renewal, there is a danger that, if there is an extended period with a shadow Sponsor Board and a shadow delivery authority, where decisions are actually being made on very dramatic amounts of money will be even more opaque.
For instance, major decisions are being made on the northern estate project, which at the moment is not part of the restoration and renewal project, regarding the design, how many floors there should be, and what planning applications we should be submitting. Those decisions are currently being made somewhere between the Finance Committee, the accounting officer, and the commission. The shadow sponsor body will start to make key decisions, but, because it will not have statutory effect until the law is brought in, those decisions will have to be ratified by the Finance Committee advising the commission.
If that period goes on for too long, there is a danger that we will end up with bad decisions, uncertain outcomes and uncertain delivery of the project and the finances. The Government can make a material difference to that by introducing the legislation. We have it in draft form at the moment, and we are delighted that that has sped up a bit, thanks to the Leader of the House. However, we need to ensure that in the next Session we get on with passing that legislation as fast as possible.
The one caveat I add is that we should consider very carefully the fact that until 2004 the Palace, like all other royal palaces, was its own planning authority. Since 2004, we have not been our own planning authority, and we are subject to the planning decisions of Westminster City Council. We have a very good working relationship with the council at the moment, but in essence the project will completely dwarf its whole planning department. To all intents and purposes, we will be paying for a new planning department foisted on Westminster City Council. There is an argument for us saying, “Frankly, we should just have it in house, rather than being subject to Westminster City Council.”
I say that because one of the key decisions that is yet to be made concerns the lighting in Westminster Hall; I think that battle has been going on with the planning authorities for the best part of 12 years. That is why we still have hideous arc lamps on the side, on chunks of scaffolding poles, in one of the most beautiful buildings in Europe. If we are unable to make timely decisions, we will end up making more expensive decisions. We need at least to examine whether we should make ourselves our own planning authority.
I am enormously grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate and, in particular, to Myfanwy and her team, who are admirable.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the House of Commons Financial Plan 2019-20 to 2022-23 and draft Estimates for 2019-20.
NHS: Hysteroscopies
(5 years, 4 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
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered NHS treatment of patients requiring hysteroscopies.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. We know that hysteroscopies save lives, but all too often they cause excruciating pain and humiliation because some of the women who need them are not treated with the dignity, respect or even humanity that they deserve.
As hon. Members will know, a hysteroscopy involves the insertion of a camera into the womb, past the cervix, to look for abnormalities and potentially enable a surgeon to remove them. It can be used to rule out a diagnosis of cancer when women are experiencing heavy periods, unexplained bleeding, repeated miscarriages or difficulties in becoming pregnant, and it is a core part of the treatment for debilitating conditions such as fibroids and health risks such as polyps in the womb. However, for some women patients it causes severe pain, a sense of violation and lasting trauma.
The NHS website states:
“A hysteroscopy is not usually carried out under anaesthetic… Taking painkillers such as ibuprofen or paracetamol…can help reduce discomfort after the procedure.”
Unfortunately, many women experience severe pain during hysteroscopy. It is usually done with little or no anaesthetic, and many women are told nothing to prepare them for the agony that awaits. I have passed the Minister many dozens of anonymous cases from women who have experienced terrible pain at the hands of NHS surgeons and were ill-informed or misinformed about the pain risks and offered little or no pain relief. I am glad to say that she has always received those stories with sympathy, empathy and understanding, but I am receiving more and more of them all the time.
This is not an issue that gets huge acclaim or interest in the press. People are finding our campaign and Facebook page simply because they need to. I will put just two experiences on the record today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As my party’s health spokesperson, I am interested in all health issues, but particularly in this one, so I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines published in March recommend that women should be offered an out-patient hysteroscopy if they have symptoms or risk factors associated with gynaecological conditions. Does she agree that that recommendation has not been translated into GP referrals? More must be done to ensure that those in need of the procedure, for the purpose of early diagnosis or the removal of issues, are referred and treated in an effective manner. It has to be done early, and that is where we fall down.
Lyn Brown
I entirely agree, but the importance of early action is sometimes used to encourage or even force women to stay with a procedure that is causing them great pain because of the fear of what might happen afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman gives me a moment, I will illustrate that point.
In October, I heard from Jenny, who has undergone two hysteroscopies, both of which were traumatic. She told me:
“My first experience was shocking. I wasn’t prepared for it. The doctor didn’t warn me at all, and during the procedure I experienced the most unbearable pain ever and I almost fainted. I rose up from the bed that I was on and I shouted out. It felt like my insides were being ripped out. I wasn’t given the option to stop nor was I given any support.
The nurse was behind the doctor throughout the procedure and just watched as I suffered. After the procedure my legs were like jelly. I felt faint and in pain but I wasn’t even helped off the bed, I wasn’t even given a sanitary towel to help with the bleeding. I left the room and drove myself home in that state, I’m lucky I didn’t have an accident. I felt traumatised, in a state of disbelief and shock.”
What is even more shocking is that Jenny’s second hysteroscopy was also traumatising, even though she now knew the risks and had taken steps to ensure that the same thing would not happen again. She explained to her doctor what had happened and requested a female doctor the next time. Her doctor said that she would write that on the referral, and at her pre-hysteroscopy appointment Jenny was told that she could have an injection to numb the area. She was reassured and trusted the female doctor to be more careful, but the procedure was—again—horribly traumatising. Jenny said:
“My god it was shocking, I once again shouted out and raised from the chair this time. The nurse was trying to calm me down…while the doctor said she would stop at any time but she needed to go in again and take a biopsy. I was told that if she didn’t...the procedure would be incomplete and I would be left worrying that it could be cancerous. So I endured more excruciating pain.
I wasn’t given the option to come back and have the procedure done under general anaesthetic, which I have now found out could have been an option. I felt tricked into having the procedure.
I suffered with terrible pain for a week after. Mentally I was left traumatised and still am to this day.”
Understandably, Jenny is now scared about any gynaecological procedure—including smear tests, which she knows are essential for her health.
This autumn, Annie got in touch. Annie had had ultrasounds and smear tests before; like many others, she was given literature about her hysteroscopy that made her think that it would be no different. She was advised just to take paracetamol and ibuprofen before the appointment, and she felt confident. She told me:
“As the procedure began, I felt instant pain, so unexpected and intense that I began to cry and panic within seconds. I was asking the nurse if this was normal as I was so scared there was something wrong, and she nodded to reassure me. I couldn’t get my words out, I was panicking, going into shock. She offered me her hand to squeeze through the pain. I tried to be strong, but I couldn’t, I was yelling out in pain, shaking and crying.
The nurses were telling me to relax my legs but it was impossible. When the Dr began the biopsy it was by far the worst pain I have ever suffered. I was hyperventilating and the nurse was telling me to breathe, but I couldn’t. I endured pain for 15-20 minutes.
I was asked to wait before I stood up, and I was so traumatised and sobbing, I just couldn’t move.
After a couple of minutes I got up and had to put on a sanitary towel and get dressed. It was hard—I was disoriented and shaking.
I sat with the Doctor who told me that due to it being too painful I have to have polyps removed under general anaesthetic. I could barely talk to him due to shock and tears. I wasn’t even offered water, and nobody asked me how I was getting home.
I cried from leaving the hospital at 2 until my wife arrived home at 6, at which point I broke down uncontrollably in her arms. I felt violated and abused, and the procedure felt very very wrong.”
As we know, women are still having these terrible experiences. I received another story in the past two weeks, but I do not have time to share them all. Women are still leaving NHS care feeling violated, and it ain’t going to stop unless we choose to stop it. I am very grateful to the Campaign Against Painful Hysteroscopy for providing support to those women and making sure that they are heard. The campaign group’s petition has received more than 47,000 signatures, which demonstrates that this is not an unusual, occasional thing.
We have four asks. First, if we are to stop patients from being violated or misled, all NHS trusts need to provide accurate information that enables women to give genuinely informed consent. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that her Department is developing tools to improve hysteroscopy care; I look forward to hearing her elaborate on those tools, but involving patients will be essential to making them work. The campaign wants to see a new patient information leaflet made available across the NHS. Campaigners have been working with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and with specialists to create an appropriate leaflet that patients who have had negative experiences of hysteroscopy have helped to write, but it still needs to be rolled out.
The leaflet needs to be honest with patients. It needs to warn that there is a real risk of severe pain during out-patient hysteroscopy, and explain the risk factors that make pain more likely. They should tell patients that they have the right to ask for the procedure to be stopped at any time and for it to be rescheduled with a full anaesthetic. Hospitals should no longer have any excuse to hand out literature stating there will only be
“mild discomfort, just like a smear”.
After they have read through the leaflet, patients should be given an opportunity to discuss with a trained doctor what is going to happen during the procedure—whether a sample is going to be cut out for a biopsy, the risks involved, and the anaesthetic choices available. The campaign suggests that both patient and doctor should then sign a consent form to confirm the discussion has taken place and the choices the patient has made.
Our second ask is for improved training to enable better and more consistent care. We know that hysteroscopy can be a painless experience for women—some women will experience little pain from hysteroscopy even with minimal anaesthetic—but as we have heard, for others it will be like torture. There are some risk factors—older women and women who have never had children are far more likely to experience severe pain during hysteroscopy—but we cannot tell in advance what someone will experience, and that means we have to improve the guidelines and raise standards through training. The current national guidelines, produced by RCOG and the British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy, do not recommend several forms of anaesthetic that I am told could be helpful. That has to be looked at, because, for some patients, stronger forms of anaesthetic might be the only way to have a hysteroscopy without experiencing severe pain.
Once we have changed the guidelines, investment in training will be needed to embed new best practice across the NHS. Hysteroscopy nurses should be routinely asking for patients’ pain scores during the procedure, so that informed decisions can be made about whether to continue or to stop. We need to audit pain scores and keep records of how comfortable the surgeon was with continuing, so that we can monitor whether more training is necessary. It should be a basic element of training that hysteroscopy teams should simply stop the procedure if a patient is suffering severe pain—not just hold them down—and reassure the patient that the procedure will be promptly rescheduled with more effective anaesthesia, rather than using the threat of possible undetected cancer to encourage her to continue.
Our third ask is for enough resources to enable all NHS bodies, everywhere in the country, to give women the choice between different anaesthetics when they need a hysteroscopy. The problem is not just flawed guidelines and inadequate training. Trusts may be loth to enable anaesthesia beyond over-the-counter painkillers or local anaesthetic simply because other methods are more expensive. Some are in-patient procedures, and some require clinicians to have specific training, and we all know that that comes with extra costs.
Our fourth, and possibly most important, ask is for a change to NHS incentives for hospitals. According to the information we have, the Department of Health’s quality, innovation, productivity and prevention tariff encourages trusts to promote hysteroscopy without anaesthetic, rather than offering an open choice to women. Annex F to the 2017 to 2019 national tariff payment system is explicit:
“For...diagnostic hysteroscopy...the aim is to shift activity into the outpatient setting.”
The best practice tariff
“is made up of a pair of prices...one applied to outpatient settings, the other to...elective admissions. By paying a higher price for procedures in the outpatient setting, the BPT creates a financial incentive for providers to treat patients there.”
The national target is for the risky out-patient hysteroscopies to increase to 70% of the total, up from 59%. The Department for Health is not working to reduce pain and trauma for women—it is incentivising hysteroscopies without effective pain relief and is taking our choices away. It has to stop, and I hope the Minister will look at how she is going to stop it.
Those are our four asks of the Government, and I think the Minister will agree with me that they are entirely reasonable. I do not believe they would be massively expensive to implement, and we should also consider that current NHS practices may not be cost-effective. Women who have undergone a painful hysteroscopy may not return for other gynaecological tests and procedures. If they do not have those early preventive interventions, more costly interventions will be needed later.
Some action has already been taken. The issue has been raised with the national medical director of NHS England. I thank the Minister for that, and for launching her women’s health taskforce, which I would be interested to hear more about today.
I would like to say something about the history of the hysteroscopy campaign and the amazing women who have led it—I am delighted to see some of them in the Gallery today. With their support, I have regularly been raising this issue in the House for four years now. I cannot say progress has been easy or swift. At times I—we—have been ignored by the Government, despite strong cross-party support every time I have raised the issue. I have been left concerned that officials at the Department of Health, and some senior NHS managers, have not been willing to engage with the problem of women’s pain when the NHS is under financial stress.
However, this last year has been more hopeful. The Minister met me and a core group of campaigners last year, and listened with compassion to their stories. I believe she has taken this cause as her own. I am waiting with bated breath to hear what she is going to say today, and to hear about the rapid and dramatic progress we are going to be able to make on this issue over the coming year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. It is an even bigger pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). I pay tribute to the work she has done to highlight this issue, which has affected many women over many years who have been left to suffer in silence.
As the hon. Lady said, there were 47,000 signatures on the campaign petition, which is an indication of just how many women have been badly affected by what is actually a common procedure. It does not matter that it is only one in four, which is probably the most generous estimate. It could be as low as one in 10; it does not matter. We are talking about individuals who have been badly affected and who have been traumatised to the point where it effects their ability to look after themselves in the future. Frankly, it is no value to the NHS to leave those women suffering in silence, and I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for sharing the experiences of the women who have been brave enough to come forward.
The hon. Lady set me a challenge. She is quite right to demand swift action, because this has been going on for many years. She had four asks. On the first two, I will work with her and the campaign to make sure we can deliver them. They are extremely reasonable, to be brutally frank. On her third ask, we need to make sure that we have sufficient resource to enable women to exercise genuine, informed choice about how they take this procedure. On the fourth ask, about the tariff, notwithstanding the guidance about what might be best practice in most cases, we need to make sure that the tariff does not encourage perverse incentives that will disadvantage women. At the heart of all this, we need to ensure that running through every piece of treatment for women with gynaecological conditions is the ability to make informed and empowered choices—genuine choices. In that respect, I see the hon. Lady as a strong ally in working towards far better treatment for all women at the hands of the NHS.
The hon. Lady has given a great voice to people who have been through such terrible experiences. She again shared some of the distressing accounts of women for whom current practice has not been good enough. She is right that in the past not enough attention has been paid to a common procedure that generates harm to far too many women. I hope that the very fact of our debate today will shine a light on the situation, because the more we can do to spread awareness, the more women are empowered to look after themselves when facing treatment in the NHS. I hope that she will take some reassurance from the fact that I will continue to work with her to improve women’s health outcomes.
I also want to put something else on the record: the hon. Lady talked about a complete lack of humanity in how those women were treated. I would not be the first to say this—I have spoken to many female colleagues across the House as well—but we often feel that, when our reproductive organs are not being used for the purpose of having children, they are just an inconvenience. The NHS needs to do better. She mentioned my women’s health taskforce, and it is very much at the heart of that. As we go through life, the virtue of having our reproductive organs brings morbidities which are not always treated well in the NHS. We need to do better.
Hysteroscopy, as the hon. Lady explained, is a useful tool in the diagnosis and treatment of a number of conditions, such as the investigation of heavy menstrual bleeding, which affects as many as one in four women between the ages of 15 and 50. That gives some indication of just how many women might consider the procedure. Hysteroscopy is also used to treat fibroids and polyps, which are conditions that can cause long-term symptoms of pain and discomfort. The procedure is without doubt useful in treating women, so hysteroscopies have a role, but as she illustrated beautifully, they can be invasive and traumatic. We need only think about what the procedure involves to understand how traumatic it can be when it becomes painful.
Women’s least expectation of going through the procedure—this is crucial—is that they should be treated with sympathy and respect. They should also have full understanding before undertaking such an experience. As the hon. Lady explained, however, often women find themselves in profound shock at what is happening, and it does not always take place in the most appropriate setting. We clearly need to do better. Information is crucial in that regard: we need to ensure that nothing comes as a surprise.
I encourage women to access the NHS webpage on hysteroscopy, which includes information on what the procedure involves, the likely recovery period and the alternative procedures available. It notes that experiences of pain during a hysteroscopy can vary considerably from one woman to another but—the hon. Lady highlighted this point—I do not think that it properly reflects that, for women who have never had children, the pain can be particularly acute. We should consider the question whether it is ever appropriate for women who have not had children to have the procedure. Clearly, from the evidence she has presented to me, that is where the highest risk is.
I also feel strongly that merely giving information is not enough. Not only is this about providing clarity about what will happen and whether there are decision points for patients—some women will experience little or no pain, but for others it can be severe. We should also remember that for some women the hysteroscopy might be a first encounter with gynaecological services and that some might need to confront past pain or trauma. The hon. Lady has illustrated that well today. It is concerning when medical professionals do not prepare patients for the treatment in a sensitive way.
I fully agree with the hon. Lady that when a woman is clearly suffering during the procedure, it should be stopped. In any case, consent means that at any point people should be able to request that a procedure is stopped. It horrified me to read some of the accounts that she shared, such as women being held down and told, in essence, “You’ve got to continue this treatment or it will be worse for you.” That sort of conversation does not belong in 21st-century Britain in our fantastic NHS. I think we would all agree, women need to be treated better in that regard.
I also agree that we need better training on pain relief and managing women who are to have what can be a traumatic procedure. For practitioners, gynaecological procedures might be an everyday thing, but us women who present ourselves for such a procedure might have to have an out-of-body experience to go through it, because it is not comfortable—[Interruption]—excuse me—to have people engaged in that. We need more sensitivity—[Interruption.] Excuse me, Chair, I have a terrible cold.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has produced a guideline to provide clinicians with evidence-based information regarding outpatient hysteroscopy—[Interruption.] Excuse me—[Interruption.]
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister is clearly in some distress. She must feel that she has more to say, but it would be perfectly in order if she wished to conclude the debate at this point. How can I put this? In these troubled times, it is really nice to see the amount of co-operation taking place across the Chamber. We have established that there is a consensus, so if she feels that she is still in some distress, it is perfectly acceptable if she wishes me to put the question, or we can continue—it is her choice.
Lyn Brown
I am really grateful to the Minister for her response thus far. I have found her, to be honest, to be the only Minister I have been able to have proper conversations with about such issues who has understood them. I am grateful. However, I honestly believe that we need to do something about the fourth ask. I am a fairly strong woman, but even I was in such a position: I had requested a hysteroscopy with general anaesthetic, but the hospital spent an hour of its time trying to talk me into having one without anaesthetic. I am in a high-risk category of being an older woman and of not having had a child, but I had to beat off the medic who was trying to use every piece of emotional blackmail that she could to get me to agree—the cost to the NHS, taking up resources, the possibility that I had cancer or of a long wait, and so on. It was an uncomfortable conversation. If we do not get rid of the perverse financial incentives, even women as strong as me will be browbeaten.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank you, Mr Howarth, and the hon. Lady for the generosity of allowing me to recover myself. We can tell it is December, because we all have colds—thank you very much.
In the short time I have left, I will address the specific issue of the tariff and the possible incentives, which I know the hon. Lady is particularly concerned about. She is right that there is a best practice tariff that incentivises care in a day-case setting with no anaesthetic, just pain relief. That tariff is agreed with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, but it is revising its guidance. I want to engage the hon. Lady and the campaign group in that process through the women’s health taskforce, so that we can all satisfy ourselves that the guidance is appropriate. She is absolutely right: if someone such as her or me—women Members of Parliament—cannot look after ourselves, neither can anyone else, and I have heard many tales of people often feeling diminished at the hands of the NHS. She and I have the opportunity to use our voices to ensure that women get a better deal.
I again thank the hon. Lady for all her work. I look forward to continuing to work with her to ensure that all women who face that procedure can do so with sensitive treatment and appropriate pain relief.
Question put and agreed to.
Leaving the EU: State Aid, Public Ownership and Workers’ Rights
(5 years, 4 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
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered state aid, public ownership and workers rights after the UK leaves the EU.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to have been selected to sponsor this important debate. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and the Minister. Their presence underlines the importance of this issue.
I do not need to spell out that we are having this debate in the context of what appears to be gridlock in Parliament. There is no clear consensus about what priorities should shape our future relationship with the EU. Today was supposed to be a day on which we made at least one decision, but even that is no longer the case. I wanted this debate to take place outside the main Chamber to ensure that its content was not considered purely in the context of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. Instead, I wanted it to inform the wider, ongoing debate about what the future relationship might look like.
I have chosen to consider these three policy areas for three reasons: first, because they are tools with which the UK Government could transform our economy and society for the better; secondly, because I believe that there is public support for their use by the UK Government; and, thirdly, because I am concerned that there is some friction between the effective use of these tools and EU law. This year, research by the Institute for Public Policy Research concluded that the public want to take back control and expand the role of the state, not reduce it. It suggested that there is no mandate for a buccaneering Brexit based on a race to the bottom in pursuit of even freer markets. Instead, the public want higher environmental standards, tougher regulation and a greater use of state aid, even at the cost of freer trade.
For balance, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that EU law bans all forms of public ownership. Nor am I suggesting that the EU prevents all forms of state aid. Indeed, there are several exemptions, and where there are no exemptions a member state can seek the approval of the European Commission. I will come on to workers’ rights later in my speech, but I acknowledge that the EU has sought to create a floor for minimum employment standards. In theory, it should prevent a race to the bottom. Those are, without doubt, important safeguards.
I was more than troubled to read that the withdrawal agreement referred only to the non-regression of labour standards. I am deeply worried that exiting on that basis would leave the British workforce exposed to the risk of seeing their statutory rights gradually eroded or falling behind those of their European counterparts.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is right to have secured this debate in this Chamber. Before she moves on to employment rights, I want to take her back to state aid. How does she think it will be different, given that the UK helped to develop the EU’s state aid rules, and the withdrawal agreement says that there will be a level playing field, which suggests that the sort of things we see now will be incorporated?
Laura Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will come on to that issue, and specifically the level playing field, later in my speech. I hope that I will answer his question shortly.
One would have to be wilfully blind to argue that there is no tension between EU law and the pursuit of a heightened role for the state in our economy. For now, I want to move on to discuss public ownership, which can take various forms. I am not advocating organisations that are owned by the Government but behave in the same way as for-profit companies, focusing on financial goals and insulated from democratic control, but the dogmatic obsession with privatisation in the UK in recent years has been exposed as a failed and outdated ideology. Hon. Members no doubt represent workers in their respective constituencies who were affected by the collapse of Carillion, which cost the taxpayer at least £148 million. There were also the failures of the east coast main line and Northern rail services, and the emergency takeover of Birmingham Prison—the list goes on.
Our public services have been siphoned off and are run by private companies interested only in extracting profits to line the pockets of their shareholders, instead of reinvesting them to improve the service or reduce consumer bills. The privatised water companies have paid out £18 billion in dividends to shareholders over the past 10 years.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point about how water companies work. In Wales, we have Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water—which is a publicly owned company that reinvests in the water network and reduces people’s bills. There are very real examples of how water companies can work for people, and we have the best example in Wales.
Laura Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that example.
In the name of efficiency, our public services have been handed to those offering the cheapest services, often at the expense of our public sector workers, who have paid the price with their pay, their terms and conditions and even their jobs. Public ownership does not just bring an end to such bad practices. Done right, it can be used to combat inequality, political disenfranchisement and underinvestment.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. If she wants a good idea of what workers’ rights will be like if we come out of Europe, she has only to look at the recent anti-trade union laws passed by the Government. That will give her a good idea of what will happen to workers’ rights. She talks about privatisation, and Crossrail will now cost an additional £2 billion. These are the issues that we have to consider. My third point is that there is no guarantee that the national health service will survive in its present form when it is opened up to predators from the United States. These are the issues that, at the end of the day, affect people’s jobs and livelihoods. There is no attempt whatever to provide future funding for university research and development, which affects manufacturing in this country in a big way—I asked the Chancellor a question about this this morning. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Laura Smith
I agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes, and I share his concerns.
Economic democracy can empower groups and individuals who are otherwise excluded. Involving workers, the public and other stakeholders in economic decision making has both societal and economic benefits. Democratic participation can also enhance the effectiveness of publicly owned enterprises by tapping into grassroots forms of knowledge and the direct experience of employees and users of public goods and services. Democracy, if we are to view it as a vital part of popular sovereignty, must extend far beyond the ability to elect Governments every now and then. The active exercise of individual worker and community member ownership rights is a prerequisite of genuine democracy.
If those campaigning to leave the EU were at all serious about taking back control for the British people, they will recognise the role that democratic public ownership can play in tomorrow’s economy. It can be used to mobilise our economy in pursuit of other policy objectives. For example, democratic public ownership of our energy system could allow us to put tackling climate change at the heart of our energy system in a radical way, while protecting the industry’s workers throughout any energy transition. It is popular: opinion poll after opinion poll demonstrates that the public are crying out for more public ownership, even given the option of “whatever works”.
EU law specifically allows for the public ownership of a service provider, yet the treaty that contains that provision also sets out an economic policy based on an open market economy, with free competition and the liberalisation of services given special status. Some commentators have suggested that remaining subject to EU law will make the reversal of market liberalisation highly problematic for a UK Government who wished to do that.
To take the postal service as an example, the third postal services directive, adopted in 2008, established a clear floor for the postal market, ensuring that collection and delivery take place at least five days a week. At the same time, it has promoted competitiveness for its own sake, which has driven down standards and posed a threat. It fails to see the market as a natural monopoly, and insists that it must remain fully liberalised, restricting the UK Government’s ability to eliminate the market to sustain the publicly owned provider.
Although public ownership of the carrier is not prohibited, it is difficult to see how a UK Government who remain subject to EU law could create a public monopoly with workers and service users at its heart, and with the necessary cross-subsidisation to allow such services to thrive. As far as I am concerned, a true level playing field would establish regulations to ensure that private sector carriers could not undercut prices, and would include a re-establishment of collective bargaining, which I will mention later.
There are similar challenges in the energy sector. The European Court of Justice’s Essent ruling found that the Dutch ban on private ownership of shares in the energy sector amounted to a breach of free movement of capital. The experience in Germany shows that it is possible to create publicly owned energy companies to rival private energy suppliers, but only within the parameters of EU competition law. The recent fourth railway package poses similar challenges in the rail sector.
I briefly draw hon. Members’ attention to a recent dispute at Royal Bolton Hospital. In Alemo-Herron, the ECJ ruled that private employers that take on the provision of public services cannot be required to pay transferred staff the pay rises that they would have had if they had remained in the employment of the public sector. By prioritising the rights of private companies to business freedom over the rights of workers who find themselves in that situation, EU law creates a financial incentive to privatise our public services.
On state aid and public procurement, I recognise that the UK has not made full use of the flexibilities on offer to it as a member state. As with all other aspects of the debate, I do not blame the European Union for the pursuit of neo-liberal policies by successive UK Governments. This Government have certainly not needed any encouragement in that respect. I also accept that there will always have to be some rules to facilitate fair trade, but the EU state aid rules are far more stringent than those in the WTO subsidies regime.
Earlier this year, I called on the Government to provide funding to cover the cost of pay owed to care workers who were found to have been paid less than the minimum wage. The failure to do so risked bankrupting care providers and putting many vulnerable people at risk. The Government, however, had to discuss the issue with the European Commission because of concerns that state aid rules would prevent them from taking such action. I am not sure whether those discussions reached a conclusion before the Court of Appeal’s July ruling.
In addition to restricting the UK Government’s ability to react to certain economic events that threaten our industries, those state aid rules can restrict our ability to intervene proactively to support individual industries or domestic supply chains as part of a comprehensive industrial strategy.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. She is making some fair points, but I take issue with the last one. There has been a very effective deployment of state aid to expand broadband provision throughout the United Kingdom, which she surely welcomes as a positive boost to the UK’s infrastructure, and to help our public services. There are some good stories to tell, despite the general recognition that the level of state aid in the UK is much lower in comparison with that in many other EU countries.
Laura Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know everybody says this, but I will come to that later, when I address broadband specifically. I agree that improving that infrastructure is essential.
The recent research from the IPPR that I mentioned earlier concludes that the public place more weight on returning powers to expand the use of state aid than to deregulate, with 53% showing a preference for allowing the Government to support and protect our industries, while only 26% preferred conformity with EU state aid rules to secure a far-reaching EU trade deal.
The variation in WTO-plus agreements suggests to me that a bespoke trade deal could, in theory, include room for structural subsidies. Those could, for example, support industries of particular national value or natural monopolies, where cost reductions would be beneficial and would have no impact on other countries. In that sense, Brexit offers an opportunity to redefine what a true level playing field looks like.
The Communication Workers Union suggested that there would, in theory, be a strong argument for rolling out superfast broadband everywhere, supported by the state, which takes us back to the point made by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). Not only is that a natural monopoly, but it is a driver of social and economic wellbeing, as he pointed out. A similar argument could be made for our post office network.
With regard to the withdrawal agreement as it stands, the Attorney General has made it quite clear that in the backstop, restrictions on state aid are hardwired, and new restrictions could be introduced even if they are not in our national interest. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether he expects our future relationship with the EU to be substantially different or based on a parallel system. In the same way, the EU procurement directive is far more restrictive than the WTO agreement on government procurement. I would support, for example, limiting eligibility for public procurement contracts to companies that can demonstrate ethical maximum pay ratios and gender pay ratios, yet the EU procurement directive raises questions as to whether that would be compatible with single market rules.
There will undoubtedly be risks to workers’ rights if we leave the EU. Parliament is currently considering a deal that refers only to “non-regression”, when it would surely have been possible to ensure that British workers enjoy at least the same statutory rights as their European counterparts, as part of what I would describe as a genuine level playing field. We must also consider collective bargaining. I do not want to stray into a debate on the benefits of collective bargaining, but suffice it to say that I believe that rolling out sectoral-level bargaining will bring far more than just improvements to workers’ wages or employment conditions, and, alongside other reforms, it can give workers a real stake in their industries, and is another prerequisite for democratising our economy.
Chris Elmore
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again, and she is making some important points. She has talked throughout about a level playing field for workers’ rights and state aid. Does she agree that it is extremely important that the UK Government work with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments where there are devolved responsibilities, to ensure that there is a level playing field? That applies particularly to future funding for communities such as mine, which received objective 1 and objective 2 status, and where Welsh Government Ministers are responsible, for example, for the NHS pay structure and, from next year, for teachers’ pay?
Laura Smith
I am grateful once again to my hon. Friend, who makes some excellent points on devolved Governments.
Long before the formation of the EU, British workers’ rights were largely gained through industrial organisation and collective bargaining. Many statutory rights that have been introduced have simply extended those rights so that they can be enjoyed universally by workers not covered by those collective agreements and contractual rights. Although I do not blame the EU for the declining role of trade unions in the British economy, I am concerned that it is heading in the same direction.
The level of collective bargaining coverage is falling across Europe, under pressure from troika policies. To highlight the direction of travel, a report prepared by the European Commission’s directorate-general for economic and financial affairs lists the following “employment-friendly reforms”: decreasing bargaining coverage; decreasing extension of collective agreements; decentralising bargaining systems; removing or limiting the favourability principle; and overall reduction of wage-setting power by trade unions. The same report lists other reforms not related to collective bargaining, including loosening the conditions for dismissals and decreasing notice periods and the level of severance payments.
We must also consider the fact that under EU law the four freedoms of business—to provide services, establish business, move capital and move labour—trump all other rights. I have already highlighted the Alemo-Herron case, in which the right of workers to the benefit of collective bargaining found in the UN charter, the European convention on human rights and the International Labour Organisation declaration was not mentioned. Also, the more well known cases of Viking and Laval, amplified by the Holship ruling, reinforce the fact that under EU law the right to take industrial action will always be treated as subservient to the four freedoms. Furthermore, the directives passed by the EU on individual employment rights have been limited in scope. For example, the agency workers directive appears helpful in principle, but is reported to have led to a massive increase in the number of agency workers across Europe who do not enjoy the same full rights as their directly employed counterparts.
That is not to dismiss the significance of EU-derived employment rights and, as I have said, I am more than disappointed to see that the Brexit deal as it stands refers only to non-regression. Our existing rights must be protected, and safeguards should have been included to ensure that British workers never fall behind their European counterparts, as part of that truly level playing field. However, as hon. Members look for alternatives to the discredited deal, we should also be conscious that the EU is not the beacon of workers’ rights that it is sometimes made out to be.
To conclude, I ask that for a moment we consider the historic vote to leave the EU. The national turnout was the highest ever for a UK-wide referendum and the highest for any national vote since the 1992 general election. Despite the main parties campaigning to remain and interventions from all sorts of interested parties about the impact that leaving would have on our economy, the public voted to leave the EU, albeit by a small margin. In my constituency, that margin is estimated to have been somewhat wider, at 41% to remain and 59% to leave.
I am sure that everyone present is also aware of the research conducted by Lord Ashcroft that concluded that the three lowest social groups voted to leave by a majority of two thirds. In that same poll, the single reason most frequently given for voting to leave was the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK. One year later, more than 80% of voters cast their vote for parliamentary candidates representing parties promising to respect the result of the referendum—a promise that I also made to the constituents whom I represent.
Since June 2016, I have done a lot of reflecting about what the result really meant. In the end, I decided that many complex and interacting factors probably influenced it, and that making sweeping generalisations would be unhelpful. One thing I concluded, however, as I am sure everyone present did, is that to ignore the result would be a profound and unforgiveable mistake. The referendum was an extraordinary exercise of democracy. If the result in 2016 was anything, it was a demand for change by those who benefited the least from our economic status quo. What is more, it was an expression by a majority of the electorate—however small and for whatever reason—that that change was best achieved with the UK outside the EU.
Even if hon. Members do not feel that expanding public ownership, state aid or workers’ rights are desirable policies, I ask them to consider the long-term consequences of lending support to any deal that further hollows out our democracy or locks us into the economic status quo. I therefore strongly urge Members to reject the single market, along with its legal framework, should such an option appear before the House. To do so is not to retreat into isolationism, protectionism and nationalism; on the contrary, it could herald the beginning of a new internationalism.
Of course we want the fullest access to all markets for our businesses, but the expansion of international trade, including in services, has not required a single market or a similarly restrictive framework. We must be vigilant to ensure that any other deal includes the necessary protections, clarifications and exemptions, so that we can use such policy tools effectively to rebuild and empower our communities, our public services and our economy in every region of the UK. I believe that there is public support for a new type of economy, one in which the state plays a more active role, in which ownership by, and accountability to, the public is included, and in which those who work within those industries are rewarded properly for their labour.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is, as always, a great pleasure to see you in the Chair for this afternoon’s proceedings, Mr Hollobone.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) on securing this debate. In some respects it is timely, because the actions of the Prime Minister yesterday have perhaps moved us a little closer to a no-deal scenario, which would be catastrophic for jobs and our communities, although my argument is that that is not a new phenomenon.
The British Government have left key Scottish industries without support for decades, and are now set to subject our firms to a Tory Brexit race to the bottom. Communities in Scotland, whether those of Linwood, Ravenscraig or Methel, know fine well that British Governments simply cannot be trusted to protect jobs and people’s livelihoods. I welcome the opportunity to shine a bright light on the stark contrast between the privatisation-obsessed British Government and a Scottish Government who believe in a thriving, healthy public sector. Westminster, not the EU, sold off our public services.
Thanks to the Scottish National party, Scottish Water, the island ferries and our NHS have all remained in public hands. In sharp contrast to the increasing health privatisation by Westminster Governments, the SNP Scottish Government have kept, and will always keep, Scotland’s NHS in public hands. Unlike water suppliers elsewhere in the UK, Scottish Water has remained a statutory corporation that provides water and sewerage services across Scotland, and it is accountable to the public through the Scottish Government.
Caledonian MacBrayne is the major operator of passenger and vehicle ferry services between the mainland of Scotland and the 22 major islands of Scotland’s west coast. Glasgow Prestwick airport is also operated on a commercial basis, at arm’s length from the Scottish Government, in compliance with European Union state aid rules, and Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd is a public corporation wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, which operates 11 Scottish airports that are vital to the social and economic welfare of the areas that they serve—some of the most fragile communities in our country. The reality, however, is that they are loss making and supported by subsidies from the Scottish Government.
The Scottish Government are also pressing ahead with plans for a national investment bank and a public energy company, supporting our position as a leading EU mixed economy. Last September, the First Minster announced plans to establish a Scottish investment bank, and we may hear more about that later this week. On a personal level, as someone who wants to see much more state ownership, I am genuinely delighted that the Scottish Government are on track to deliver their ambition of a public energy company by the end of the Parliament in 2021. Even better, there will be a public sector bid to run the railways in Scotland—long overdue, in my view. In Scotland, we have a good story to tell about our commitment to workers’ rights, protecting jobs and putting more services in public hands.
I now turn to the real threats to workers’ rights as a result of our exit from the European Union. History shows us that the EU has forced successive Westminster Governments to improve workers’ rights. Such rights must not be put at risk by a Tory Brexit race to the bottom. It is important that we reflect on them and take stock of just how much EU membership has improved workers’ rights. For example, the EU’s working time regulations were introduced in the UK in 1998, meaning that employees cannot be forced to work more than an average of 48 hours a week and should get a rest time of at least 11 consecutive hours. Equal pay between men and women has been enshrined in EU law since 1957, and the 1992 EU pregnant workers directive guarantees women a minimum of 14 weeks’ maternity leave.
Make no mistake: leaving the European Union and allowing the British Government to take charge of those rights is a deeply retrograde step that will lead to a bonfire of workers’ rights. That is why, even at this late stage, I appeal to Members on the Conservative and Labour Benches to join us to end the Brexit chaos. If they do not, or will not, they should not be surprised when Scotland unhooks the tow bar and takes us on a different path of independence.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a proud lifelong trade unionist.
This debate is especially important because when the Prime Minister addressed the House yesterday, she gave the impression that the only concerns about her deal came from her own Benches and related entirely to the backstop. Let me say clearly and loudly to the Minister that is not the case for my constituents and working people across the country who want an agreement that protects both their jobs and their rights in those jobs. I will focus my speech on that.
Equality for part-time workers, maternity and paternity leave, health and safety standards, protections from discrimination and harassment, equal pay terms and regulation of working hours are among the basic labour standards won by the labour movement—not just in the UK, but across Europe—that are under threat from a Tory Brexit. The Minister may deny that but his colleagues have given the game away. The International Trade Secretary—the last man standing of the Prime Minister’s original three Brexiteers—was clear about his vision when he said:
“we must begin by deregulating the labour market”,
and that it is
“intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable”.
The former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), put it more bluntly when his book described British workers as
“among the worst idlers in the world.”
The track record of this Government speaks even louder than those words: a damaging and draconian Trade Union Act that attacks representatives of millions of working people across the UK, for instance. Tribunal fees caused a staggering drop in the number of workers able to bring claims against exploitative bosses. It is the same story even on an issue as basic as ensuring waiters can keep their own tips. If the Minister’s answer is to trust the Government, the people of Barnsley will regard that as little more than a joke. The withdrawal agreement gives us almost nothing in the way of legal safeguards; instead, it gives Ministers power to repeal, dilute and cut employment rights after we leave.
I will take the liberty of anticipating the Minister’s reply and deal with the so-called “non-regression” clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned. Even during the transition, it leaves us exempt from any measure whose deadline falls beyond the end of the phase, leaving British workers falling behind our European counterparts even before we have fully left. Even worse, non-regression clauses of this sort have been found deeply flawed in a series of court judgments. I will not recite the legal precedents in full, but they have been described as a “fallen fig leaf” by leading legal commentators. The article in the agreement is for the stated purpose of
“ensuring the proper functioning of the single customs territory”
rather than protecting workers’ rights in itself, limiting it even further.
The Government could have given us a standstill clause, which would have given them a legally binding duty that workers and trade unions could enforce in the courts, but they decided not to. The Attorney General confirmed to the House last week that the
“non-regression clauses…are not enforceable either by the EU institutions or by the arbitration arrangements under the withdrawal agreement.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 559.]
He made clear that he thought that was a good thing. That is a stark and telling contrast to the far tougher and enforceable requirements on state aid that my hon. Friend referred to. No wonder the Institute for Public Policy Research, among others, concluded that the non-regression clause was
“not sufficient to maintain current protections”.
Then, there is the political declaration. We have often heard on Brexit that the devil is in the detail, but the problem with the political declaration is that there is no detail. It does not even have legal effects. Any new Tory Prime Minister—hardly an unlikely prospect, from what we see of the party opposite me—could just rip it up. Its only reference to workers’ rights is in the section on “open and fair competition”, which tells us exactly how they are seen—simply a way to maintain fair competition.
We have always said that we want a future relationship where rights and protections are defended, preventing a race to the bottom. This agreement threatens to do the very opposite. It opens the door to a future where labour standards come second to the interests of big business, rights at work are watered down and a Conservative Government can dismantle yet more protections for workers and unions. The people I represent in Barnsley voted very clearly to leave. I respect that decision, but I do not believe they voted for a reduction in workers’ rights, jobs and prosperity. The question is not whether we leave but how we leave.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will not hold up the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) for very long, but I have just a couple of points that are too long to make as interventions; therefore, I felt the best thing to do would be to speak.
To pick up on the question of rights, a number of hon. Members spoke about a bonfire of rights that will come about as a result of our leaving the European Union. However, there is another organisation responsible for protecting those rights: the Council of Europe. We ignore that at our peril. I know that it is seen as a great thing in this country that we send no journalists along to Council of Europe meetings—we send along our delegation, if they can be spared by the Whips Office, but it is always a secondary thing—and yet the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) mentioned a case that was heard by the European Court of Human Rights. That does not belong to the European Union; it belongs to the Council of Europe, an independent organisation set up in 1948 with the aim of protecting human rights in Europe. The ECHR, which the Council of Europe looks after, is a unique body. It is one where we, as council members, elect the judges to serve for individual countries, so it has a democratic legitimacy.
I think back to the various meetings that we have held over the past few years, and I can assure the hon. Lady that employee rights, whether in specific circumstances or more generally, have been on the agenda for discussion on many occasions. For example, on at least one occasion we have looked at the rights of employees to access information about themselves and their cases, in order to take forward what they want to do. This conversation seems to be a bit one sided. So far it has not looked at the bigger picture or taken into account what the Council of Europe does.
Stephanie Peacock
I think I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the Council of Europe can help to protect workers’ rights, but the people I represent, and a lot of those who voted to leave, voted so that this place could protect workers’ rights. Surely, it is the democratically elected Government’s responsibility to ensure that workers’ rights are protected.
John Howell
That is an interesting question. We give up our rights to decide things for ourselves in a number of situations. We give up the right to our own sovereignty by belonging to the United Nations and to NATO. To a certain extent, we give it up by belonging to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Most importantly, we give up our rights to some aspects of our sovereignty by being members of the Council of Europe. It is not right for the hon. Lady to look at this issue solely in terms of one or two organisations; she needs to look at a third organisation—the Council of Europe—which is there to provide just that sort of reassurance to people about their human rights, which I think she and her colleagues are, and have been, looking for.
I want to touch on Birmingham prison, which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich opportunely mentioned in passing. This morning I participated in a Justice Select Committee sitting in which we questioned senior members of the Prison Service about what happened at Birmingham Prison. A key point relates to provisions in the contract with G4S not to hold it to account in many ways that we would normally expect. All of us, on both sides of the political fence, questioned those witnesses about the legitimacy of excluding those areas from the contract and how they could manage them.
Birmingham Prison is a good example of the mixture of public and private collaboration, in that we have public collaboration through the Ministry and the Department, which hold those running the prisons to account rather than having to run them themselves. We asked about the extent to which windows had been broken and not fixed, and why no one had been held to account and what had happened. At the end of the sitting we specifically asked the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice what would happen at the end of that examination. We got a firm statement that the contract would possibly at some stage go back to G4S when we could all be assured that it would be able to keep prisoners in the state in which we would expect them to be kept and look after them properly. That is a good combination of private and public sector partnerships in action.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, particularly as I was not on the speakers list. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) for making such a strong case. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on the Front Bench and I welcome the new Minister. I hope he enjoys his portfolio for as long as it lasts.
I want to make three brief points that it is important to make, as they sometimes do not feature in debates. Although we are here in this important debate to escape from Brexit, it very much relates to Brexit or what might result from it. First, when I have been involved in trying to save companies and looking at how the public sector can get involved in that, I have always been told that we cannot do so because of state aid rules. I have never understood what those state aid rules are. I am sure that there are state aid rules that apply, and that the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Arbitration—whichever it is—can eventually adjudicate on whether public money was used properly, but that is at best years down the line.
My point is that the argument about state aid rules has always been used to effectively allow national Governments—in this case ours—a cop-out, when what they are really saying is, “We don’t want to help this company or industry, and we now have a wonderful excuse that gives some credibility to our rationale for so doing.” It was applied to steel in Redcar, and I can cite local cases where it was up to the national Government to put their money where their mouth was and where, if they had really wanted to save a company or industry, they could have.
I know a little about the agriculture industry and the different boxes—the amber, the red, the green and the blue. This relates not only to the EU, but to the WTO, and I was pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said about that. We know that the WTO rules are laxer, but this is about the framework within which the EU wants to operate. The most subsidised agriculture system in the world is in America. Where did the term “pork-barrel politics” come from? It is about putting money into the American mid-west to win elections. It is against any notion of free and fair trade, so I take it with a pinch of salt when I am told that state aid rules are so restrictive that we cannot do anything.
In many ways I see that in contract law. Perhaps the days are long gone, but when we put forward a contract, the Official Journal of the European Union was always waved in our face and we were told the contract had to go through a system of rigorous assessment, yet when it came down to it, we could employ local labour when we wanted to, but that was always seen as not being possible.
My second point is about fairness in the application of state aid. I am grateful for the Library’s papers on this. When we look at state aid as a percentage of GDP, we are always in the bottom quartile. We choose not to invest anything like the sums of money that other countries do in supporting our industry. That must be the case because so many of our railways, water companies, waste companies and energy companies are owned by foreign national concerns—even nationalised concerns. So something happens elsewhere within the EU that, again, we choose not to follow as a national state. I worry that we use the EU as an Aunt Sally. Other countries seem able to control our major companies through their public sectors. Nothing illustrates that more than Hinkley Point, which we have effectively handed over not only to the French state, but to the Chinese state, which is funding it. Of course, China is not part of the EU, but it is part of the WTO, and I would love to know why, when we try to do things in this country involving the public sector, we are so much more constrained.
Thirdly, I share my hon. Friend’s concern, and I worry about where we will go after the end of March if we are out of the EU or whatever state we will be in. There is an inclination that we could witness a race to the bottom. I worry, for example, that our regulatory framework will be overseen by the Competition and Markets Authority, which, from my experience, has no real interest in labour standards or trying to protect trade union rights, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) talked about. We ignore that at our peril and might find not only that we have leapt from the frying pan into the fire, but that the fire has completely engulfed us. There will be the threat of a race to the bottom. The idea that we will become a global nation basically means that we will simply cut our wages and conditions, which will apparently yield a wonderful competitive advantage.
I have made those three points because the debate is important. It is apposite because it comes on the back of all the other shenanigans that have been going on over the past few days about whether we are leaving and on what terms. This is important. The British public might be asked for a second opinion on our relationship with the EU. It would at least help if we could put to them what really goes on, rather than some of the myths that seem to be continually put across about what we can do and what we choose not to do.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. As you can hear, I am going to battle through my speech this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has called me a “wee sowl”—all I can say is that interventions will be very much encouraged during my remarks. First, I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) for securing this debate, which is timely, given the game playing that we have seen over the past couple of days by the Government.
Yesterday I was expecting to address the House on the deal, but we found out that the debate was cancelled. Another reason why the debate is timely is that yesterday I was going to make the argument I made during the EU referendum campaign—to remain and reform. I understand the Lexit argument that the EU can be seen as a capitalist club, but my view was then, and is now, that the answer to neo-liberalism is not to leave for more neo-liberalism and deregulation. I fear that that is happening and very much regret that successive UK Governments, but particularly Conservative ones, have had a disgraceful record on applying for EU social funds. It is worth reflecting on that.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), my friend and trade union comrade, made a point about people in lower income brackets—the same ones who would have benefited if former UK Governments had taken a more proactive approach on EU social funds. I am thinking particularly of the one for food poverty. However, the UK Government did not apply, so France and Germany got €450 million from the EU to help with food poverty, and because the UK did not apply it got the same amount of money as Malta, which was €12 million. Like many others who have spoken, I have a concern that we could end up with the UK leaving the EU and signing trade deals that would make the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership look moderate.
The debate is timely also in relation to the current Government’s direction of travel on public sector delivery and the management of the economy. Already, Carillion, which was providing public sector services, has collapsed. I have previously warned here, and in written questions, about issues with Interserve, which looks like being the next Carillion.
We are also in the ludicrous position where the current Government are considering privatising veterans’ services. This must be one of few nations that would even consider that. We know the current Government’s approach to workers’ rights because of—to correct my friends in the Labour party—the “anti-trade union” Act, which is what we should call the Trade Union Act 2016.
The Government, following the passage of the 2016 Act, were forced to consider e-balloting, but almost three years down the line they have done nothing to help with e-balloting for industrial action ballots. That is relevant to the present debate because if the EU referendum had been conducted according to the same rules as a trade union industrial action ballot, it would not have been possible to prosecute Brexit. The result would have failed to comply with the 40% rule that the Government insist on applying to trade unions in industrial action ballots. I shall take a sip of water now, Mr Hollobone —if no one is keen to intervene on me.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East has said, over the past few decades Westminster Governments have left key Scottish industries, and industries across the UK, without support. There is now a real fear that we face a Tory Brexit race to the bottom. In decades when Thatcherism, it has been said,
“swept like a wrecking ball through the mines, the steel industry, the car factories, shipbuilding and engineering and oversaw the demise of the communities which had built their livelihoods around them”
it was the Conservative Government who referred to miners as “the enemy within”. It was often felt that the same sentiment was directed towards many working communities. That Government’s attitude to many of those communities can be summed up by the classic Proclaimers song “Letter from America”:
“Bathgate no more
Linwood no more
Methil no more
Irvine no more”.
Let us not forget that the period from 1981 to 1983 was the worst recession since the 1930s, destroying one fifth of the industrial base and doubling unemployment. That was before war was declared on the miners. The Linwood car plant in Renfrewshire closed in 1981 with the loss of 4,800 jobs. Plessey Electronics in Bathgate closed in 1982. Leyland’s lorry factory in Bathgate closed in 1986 with 1,800 jobs lost. Ravenscraig steelworks closed in 1992 with the loss of 1,200 jobs. Various Clyde shipyards wound down or closed, including Scott Lithgow in Greenock in 1988.
Chris Stephens
I am relieved to find that someone wants to intervene on me.
David Linden
I am grateful to that wee sowl my hon. Friend; my question is in 22 parts so he may as well take a seat, to quote “The West Wing”.
In all seriousness, my hon. Friend is rightly listing the communities decimated by the horrific economic policy of the Thatcher Government. Does he understand that there is a clear correlation between many of the communities he named and voting yes to independence in 2014? They realised that the only way they could get fairness in a rejuvenated local economy would be through their own Government having the power to act.
Chris Stephens
As someone representing the constituency with the second highest individual number of yes voters in the 2014 referendum, I think my hon. Friend is right. The reason why the issue is important is that European Governments supported their steel industries against cheap imports. They supported their industrial base at a time when the UK did not. There are fears at the moment, with the current Government refusing to match Scottish Government funding for the Tayside deal to support Michelin workers who face job losses. It just goes to show that the “nasty party” tag is still alive and well.
The Scottish Government have had to intervene to help commercial shipbuilding on the Clyde, finding a new buyer for the Ferguson shipyard, and they have also intervened in relation to securing a new owner for the steelworks. For the first time, following a campaign and the amendment of the law, the Scottish Government have secured the power to allow a public-sector bid for a rail franchise in Scotland. It was Westminster that sold off public services, not the European Union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East described very well. It is the Scottish Government who are pressing ahead with plans for a national investment bank and public energy company.
Workers’ rights are a passion of mine. I was a trade union activist before I arrived in this place. It was the European Union that forced successive Westminster Governments to improve workers’ rights. The pregnant workers directive of 1992 guaranteed women a minimum of 14 weeks’ maternity leave, and that forced the then Labour Government to go further.
The European Court of Justice made it clear that any discrimination against a woman because of pregnancy or maternity leave is sexism and should be treated as such. It was EU law that provided that parents must be allowed 18 weeks’ unpaid leave from work to look after a child. The equal treatment directive led to UK law banning discrimination on the grounds of age, religion or sexual orientation. Indeed, that directive is helping many women, particularly in the public services, to make equal pay claims. I am grateful for that, and should declare that I am currently an equal pay claimant against my former employer—but I shall move swiftly on.
EU rules adopted in 2008 provide that temporary workers must be treated equally with directly employed staff, which includes the giving of access to the same amenities and collective services. We know from research that 41 of the 65 new health and safety regulations introduced in the UK since 1997 have come from the European Union. The Scottish National party takes the issue of tackling exploitative working practices extremely seriously, and we oppose the “anti-trade union” Act 2016.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East is campaigning for the UK Government to stop discriminating against young people and ensure they get a real living wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) is promoting the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill, and I recommend the well-crafted and beautifully written Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill that seeks to simplify the status of workers in law and eliminate zero-hours contracts. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. SNP Members oppose neo-liberalism. We do not see Brexit as a way to enhance neo-liberalism, and if it turns out to be it will be a disaster for this country—it will be a disaster for the United Kingdom.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) on securing this important debate, which is now the only piece of Brexit business tabled today—not what I was expecting.
State aid, public ownership, and workers’ rights are the critical building blocks of our nation’s economic model, and getting them right will be crucial to our future prosperity and the nature of any post-Brexit settlement. As my hon. Friend expressed so clearly, the Brexit vote has exposed the flawed foundations of our economic model. After decades of crying that “there is no alternative” to neo-liberal privatisation, laissez-faire economics, and deregulated labour markets, it was a Conservative Chancellor who, after the Brexit vote, threatened to “change our economic model”. Of course, he was actually proposing an acceleration of neoliberal reform without the constraints of European law—a “race to the bottom” in workers’ rights and protections, as the Leader of the Opposition put it in Lisbon last week.
The European Union delivers and guarantees important rights to British workers that we cannot allow to be taken away, but it has not always fulfilled the promise of a social Europe. I was also in Lisbon last week, representing the British Labour party at the congress of the party of European Socialists. I told them that no matter what happens with Brexit, we must all fight for socialist values within Europe: strengthening the rights of workers and trade unions, and ending austerity and wage suppression.
Yesterday in France President Macron finally recognised that French working people need higher incomes, not lower ones, if France is to prosper. It should not take riots in the street for our leaders to get that point. Here in Britain the real issue underlying Brexit is that working people want and deserve real rights, a real voice, and better lives. The Brexit deal must therefore defend what we have won in a European context by upholding workers’ rights and social protections, and if Brexit does not mean that, it is a total fraud against working people. The deal must also allow us to make further gains in the context of our continuing economic relationship with Europe, whether by strengthening European works councils, or restoring public ownership of public goods. That is what the Leader of the Opposition meant when he said in Lisbon:
“As socialists and trade unionists, we will work together to help build a real social Europe, a people’s European socialist Europe”.
What should that mean in practice for state aid, public ownership, and workers’ rights? As many hon. Friends have eloquently said, Labour Members reject the Government’s position that the best the state can do for the economy is get out of the way of the private sector. In the words of the renowned economist Mariana Mazzucato, we believe in an entrepreneurial state that stands shoulder to shoulder with the private sector. We are not talking about uneconomic subsidies for dying industries or failing firms; we want targeted interventions that support a prosperous, competitive, growing, and technologically driven economy that works for all. Yes, that should include public ownership where there is a natural monopoly or important public goods are at stake. Mazzucato also observed that, much like taxation and regulation, state aid rules are often used as an excuse for no investment and general inertia, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) pointed out, that is particularly true for the UK Government. One example of that is in my region, the north-east, where the steel sector was allowed to decline and suffer because of Conservative inaction.
The UK has never gone as far as European Union law allows to enable the state to support the UK economy. As a percentage of GDP, we spend far less on state aid than our European neighbours—roughly 0.3%, compared with 0.6% in France and 1.2% in Germany. Public ownership is common on the continent, guaranteed by article 345 of the Lisbon treaty, which allows countries to make their own decisions on ownership. SNCF is France’s national state-owned railway company, and the German energy sector is experiencing a return to public and communal ownership. In this country we have Scottish Water, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). Some French and German public companies even own parts of our privatised utilities, and in that far-left enclave, the Netherlands, private ownership of water companies is illegal.
Although it is true that European Union member states are bound by a requirement to provide aid only on the basis of a level playing field, public service compensation does not constitute state aid when it applies to services of general economic interest. Those are economic activities that deliver outcomes in the overall public good that would not be supplied by the market—or would be supplied under different conditions regarding objective quality, safety, affordability, equal treatment or universal access—without public intervention. That could refer to a number of services, so will the Minister commit to report back to Parliament on which of our services of general economic interest we need to protect?
Before entering Parliament I had a job as Head of Telecoms Technology for Ofcom, the communications regulator, and I spent many months comparing our use of provisions for services of general economic interest with the way they were used by our European neighbours. I can confirm to the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, that we do not use such provisions. The Government do not even seem committed to protecting our public services in new trade deals. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that future trade deals do not threaten the public ownership of crucial national assets such as our NHS?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) remarked, regardless of whether people voted leave or remain in the European Union referendum, no one voted for worse rights at work. Well, at least not at their work. Members of the European Research Group may well have voted for worse rights for others, while wishing to retain and indeed expand their privileges as parliamentarians. They want working people back in the middle ages, but not the sanctions that MPs received at that time. A poll commissioned by the Institute for Public Policy Research in February this year found that more than 70% of people want European Union rights at work to be strengthened or maintained after Brexit—more than double the number who thought they should be watered down.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised to maintain workers’ rights post Brexit. For example, she said at her party conference in 2016 that
“existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law—and they will be guaranteed as long as I am Prime Minister.”
Only last month, she assured the House that her deal successfully safeguarded workers’ rights. Yet, as colleagues pointed out, this Government repeatedly voted down Labour amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that would have required primary legislation if future Governments sought to reduce workers’ rights. With that rejection, our rights are left vulnerable to deregulation by ministerial diktat.
By not allowing new European works councils to form or having a contingency plan to replace them, the Tories would leave British workers at a disadvantage to their European Union colleagues. Will the Minister commit to reversing the decision to scrap European works councils?
The Government’s withdrawal agreement contains significant flaws with regard to workers’ rights. As was pointed out, one of the provisions of the backstop is a non-regression clause on labour standards, which would prevent either party from lowering protections below their current levels. However, it allows for some divergence, meaning that a UK Government would still be able to water down workers’ rights—a worrying possibility given this Government’s track record on labour protections.
Moreover, the non-regression clause would not require us to update our labour legislation alongside the European Union, meaning that over time we could end up with significantly poorer protections. That is a real concern given the growth of the so-called gig economy. Only last month, Tory MEPs joined the UK Independence party in voting against new rights for gig economy workers in the European Parliament. Will the Minister commit to updating workers’ rights in line with European best practice following the end of the transition period?
My party has pledged to protect workers and their hard-won rights, reject no deal as a viable option, and negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a cliff edge for the UK economy and workers. We have pledged to ensure workers are represented on company boards and to require firms with more than 250 employees to set up ownership funds, making workers part-owners of their companies.
My party will make full use of the powers the state has, and should have, to build an economy that supports workers’ rights, trade union rights, innovation and industry in every region of our country, and that works for my constituents in Newcastle and for the constituents of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell)—in short, an economy that works for the many, not the few.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) for securing this important debate. There were passionate and learned contributions from the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South—
Chris Skidmore
Apologies—the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I was deeply impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s ability to speak through his vocal impairment; he was cutting quite loudly through it by the end of his speech. We also heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and, last but not least, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), whom I thank for his generous congratulations on my fifth day in my new role.
Chi Onwurah
I regret that I did not take the opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new role and I wish him every success for the period he occupies it.
Chris Skidmore
I am deeply grateful for those kind words. I am getting stuck into the job by appearing at this debate, but I am here to represent the views of my Department as a replacement Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, sends her profuse apologises that she has been unable to attend. She is representing the Department in the debate on the Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 in Committee corridor. I am here in her place to represent the Department’s views.
Let me start with what state aid rules are and why they exist, what is and is not state aid, and when it is allowed. Put simply, state aid is Government support or subsidy of an economic operator that gives it an advantage it could not get on the open market and distorts competition in the single market. The EU has tough rules governing the way subsidies can be given, to stop companies from getting an unfair advantage over their competitors and to ensure that countries with deep pockets do not subsidise their companies to the detriment of companies in other member states. However, where there are good policy justifications for state aid—where the benefit from giving aid outweighs the potential harm of a subsidy—the rules enable aid to be given.
Not all Government spending is aid. In fact, less than 1% of UK Government spending meets the technical definition of state aid. The state aid rules are about supporting fair and open competition, and the UK has long been a vocal proponent of them. The rules exist to stop countries from subsidising their industries unfairly, which would put businesses out of business and workers out of work.
A second misconception is that state aid rules prevent nationalisation. As long as the Government do not pay more than the market price for any assets acquired, the rules do not prevent that. However, the rules oblige the state to act as a normal market investor. That is good, because it prevents public authorities from unfairly distorting markets. State aid rules are neutral on public ownership and on the detail of spending decisions.
State aid rules are also fundamental to any free trade agreement. The political declaration on the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the UK recognises that. Free and fair trade is not possible if one party is able to subsidise without restraint. In a single customs territory that allowed the free trade of goods, as provided for in the draft withdrawal agreement, neither the EU nor the UK would be able to apply tariffs as measures against unfair subsidies by the other party. To ensure fair and open competition, it is absolutely necessary for the same state aid rules to apply consistently within the single customs territory, not to be frozen or disapplied for one bit of it.
I turn to workers’ rights, which have been the predominant topic of discussion. It is important to be clear that we are not making a choice between protecting state aid rules and protecting workers’ rights. As a responsible Government, we will work both to prevent unfair subsidies and to protect the rights of workers. The UK—we had several history lessons through some of the learned contributions to the debate—has a long-standing record of ensuring that workers’ rights are protected. Those include employment and equality rights, and protections for health and safety at work.
The decision to leave the European Union does not change that. This Government have made a firm commitment to protect workers’ rights and to maintain the protections covered in the Equality Acts.
Chris Stephens
Can the Minister tell us when the Government plan to publish their proposals in response to the Taylor review?
Chris Skidmore
In terms of the Government’s commitment and the commitments I am giving today, I reflect that the Prime Minister said recently in the House that
“we already go further than EU minimum standards, including on annual leave, paid maternity leave, flexible leave, paternity leave and pay, and parental leave, because we know that the first responsibility for protecting those rights sits with…Parliament. As we take back control of our laws, we will not only honour that responsibility, but go further still…by implementing the recommendations of the Taylor review. So we will not just protect workers’ rights: we will enhance them.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 760.]
The Government have been clear that they will take the recommendations of the Taylor review forward.
Stephanie Peacock
Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), the Minister has not given the House a date. If he is that committed to the response, can he tell us when it will be?
Chris Skidmore
I appreciate the hon. Members’ request for a specific date. I will have to fall back on a position of ensuring that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, the responsible Minister in this policy area, will write to both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West setting out clearly the next stages and the time frame for them.
Given our record in comparison to the EU standards in many areas, it is not surprising that Eurofound, the EU agency for work-related policy, ranks the UK as the second best country in the EU for workplace wellbeing, behind only Sweden, and the best country for workplace performance.
There has been some discussion about the EU withdrawal agreement. That will ensure that workers’ rights enjoyed under EU law will continue to be available in UK law after we have left the EU. That includes rights derived from EU law, such as the working time directive and the agency workers’ directive. Specifically within the withdrawal agreement, the UK is seeking a stringent and legally binding agreement with the EU not to roll back on employment standards. A joint committee would ensure that the UK was keeping to the agreement at a political level. There will be no roll-back of rights, including collective bargaining rights, when we leave the EU.
John Howell
I remind my hon. Friend of the European Social Charter, which we signed up to in 1961. Of the rights guaranteed by that charter, there are the
“the right to work, the right to organise”—
that is to be part of a trade union—
“the right to bargain collectively, the right to social security, the right to social and medical assistance, the right to the social, legal and economic protection of the family,”
and so on. Those are just some of the rights protected by this Council of Europe treaty that we signed up to in 1961 and it stands completely outside whatever is agreed in the withdrawal agreement.
Chris Skidmore
I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. I listened to his speech on the Council of Europe and know he is a dedicated member of it. I pay tribute to his work, which often goes unheralded in this place. We know that there are many colleagues from across all parties who do a great deal of work on behalf of the United Kingdom at the Council of Europe, and it is right that that is recognised in this debate.
I hope the Government’s commitment, in both the withdrawal agreement and statements that we have made, will give certainty and continuity to employees and employers alike, creating stability in which the UK can grow and thrive. The political declaration on our future relationship makes it clear that we will build on this for the future deal with the EU. We want to ensure that the future economic partnership of the EU is underpinned by measures that ensure fair and open competition. Obviously, a rigorous approach to state aid is a critical component of that and provides a foundation for ensuring smooth trade and a partnership based on high market access. That is reflected in the political declaration, which establishes state aid as a crucial part of the level playing field commitments. The text makes clear that the precise nature of these commitments will depend on the scope and depth of the future relationship and the negotiations to take place.
There is no choice between taking the state aid rules or protecting workers’ rights; the Government recognise the fundamental importance of both.
Stephanie Peacock
The Minister talked about state aid and workers’ rights. Can he explain why the rules on state aid are both tougher and clearly more enforceable, in contrast to those on workers’ rights?
Chris Skidmore
I am not going to pre-judge what is taking place as we move towards a clear, definable free trade agreement with the European Union and the discussions that will happen after the political declaration. We have made that commitment, but actually we want to make sure that the United Kingdom has the ability to ensure that UK rights are clear, definable and stronger. They are already stronger than those in many European countries. We will continue to ensure that we have the reputation I mentioned: being the second best country in the EU for workplace wellbeing, behind only Sweden. It is important for our global reputation that we maintain that.
On the point about the EU workers council, if the EU withdrawal agreement is not approved we will still unilaterally protect workers’ rights in relation to European workers councils, as far as we can. However, to protect them fully, we require a deal with the EU, which sets the rules governing the establishment of a new European workers council. That is why I believe that the withdrawal agreement is so important to ensuring that we have no reduction in workers’ rights.
We will go further than the minimum labour market standards guaranteed in a withdrawal agreement. The Government will protect workers’ rights to ensure that they keep pace with changing labour markets. I hope the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich agrees that our approach on these vital issues will help secure the best possible deal for the UK as we leave the European Union.
Laura Smith
Thank you to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Stroud (Dr Drew), to the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Henley (John Howell), and to all other hon. Members who made interventions. I thank the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who is incredibly brave, battling through his cold—well done. I also thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who stepped in at the last moment.
There have been some excellent contributions on the importance of workers’ rights and the popularity of public ownership. I agree that it is UK Governments who are responsible for the privatisation of public services and the casualisation of labour.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Henley, my concern was precisely that the rights of workers in the charter in the European Court of Human Rights were not mentioned in the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling in the Alemo-Herron case. I was not criticising the ECHR or the Council of Europe—quite the opposite, in fact. I was pointing out that the workers’ rights afforded by the ECHR, which appeared to have no bearing in the Alemo-Herron case, were trumped by the four freedoms.
On the point about Birmingham prison, I stand by my view that the evidence is mounting up rapidly. The obsession with outsourcing and privatisation is a failed project that is costing the taxpayer and the workers in those services an awful lot, while letting down those who rely on the services.
Finally, the current withdrawal agreement means dynamic alignment with EU state aid rules, so it is important that we gain a full understanding of them and the likely direction of travel. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that the UK Government have made conscious decisions not to aid industry in the way that other EU countries have done. The point is that our national Parliament understands and is happy that the future state aid framework and regulations around public ownership allows for proper democratic debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered state aid, public ownership and workers rights after the UK leaves the EU.
Cat Welfare
(5 years, 4 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
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered cat welfare.
I am grateful to you, Mr Hollobone, and I am grateful that the Minister is in his place. This debate about cat welfare is linked to a private Member’s Bill that I presented to the House in July 2018, after speaking to a fantastic local charity in my constituency, Animals Lost and Found in Kent. To be frank, I was not aware of its great work until we were looking at the national volunteers charity day and my wonderful staff member Finlay, who is sitting in the Gallery behind me, said, “This is a list of charities in the constituency. Which one would you like to go and visit?” So I said, “Animals Lost and Found in Grange Road, Gillingham. Let’s go and see the great work they do.”
Meeting Natasha and Dee was inspirational. They are two individuals who do not have a lot of money, but they do have an amazing heart in wanting to do the right thing and ensuring that animals that have been abandoned, lost or injured get the support they need. I went to the back of their house and I saw a number of cats who had been neglected, injured or abandoned. I said to Natasha and Dee, “What can I do to help you?” They said that the legislation needed to be looked at.
There are 11.1 million cats in our country, who are part of our everyday families. They bring immense happiness to each and every one of us.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend secured the debate. Is he aware that in 2016 the press reported 202 cats as having been shot in the United Kingdom, with 90% shot in either England or Wales, where we have more lax laws on air rifles? Does he agree that we should look at tightening up the law on the possession and ownership of airguns?
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that important information from 2016. I was made aware of specific points about firearms, banning electric training aids and the control of airguns by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals—the wonderful charity that does great work in this area—but I was not aware of his specific point. It is absolutely right that we do everything we can on the regulation of those firearms to prevent that kind of completely unacceptable behaviour and to ensure that the welfare of animals is protected at every level.
The amazing joy that these wonderful animals bring to our lives also means that we have a responsibility to do everything we possibly can to ensure that their welfare is protected.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Stapeley Grange Cattery in my constituency, which does an amazing job at looking after and re-homing cats. I also pay tribute to my own cat, Pudding, who is a remarkable addition to our family.
Rehman Chishti
I, too, pay tribute to the work of that cattery and congratulate the hon. Lady on the new member of her family. I am sure that her cat will be treated like a member of the family, as cats are throughout the country.
I could look at several cat welfare issues, including the public education campaign, cat breeding legislation, the control and regulation of airguns, which was raised earlier, and fireworks.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. As a cat lover, I am very lucky that Trixie the cat came to me as a stray, and that, growing up, we had Tippy the cat, who came from the Cats Protection League. The Cats Protection League’s 2022 agenda encapsulates a lot of the issues that he has talked about, from microchipping to reducing violence against cats. It is really important that we get behind that campaign.
Rehman Chishti
I am so glad that I gave way, because the hon. Lady talked about Cats Protection, which I have met with and which has written to other Members and me. I was delighted to attend its Christmas parliamentary reception, along with other colleagues here. It does amazing work, and it is important that we work with it to ensure that we get the right kind of framework.
I was making the point that we could look at several cat welfare issues, but I will focus on two: the compulsory microchipping of all cats and reporting after an accident.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. When I got married some 32 years ago, my wife loved cats but I perhaps did not. However, as I continued to love my wife, I continued to love her cats as well. That is how life is. She is a volunteer and worker at the Assisi Animal Sanctuary, which does excellent work for cats and dogs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that charities such as Assisi do a phenomenal job in caring for stray cats and in providing sterilisation and other deterrents that he referred to? No matter how good a job it does, we in the House must do ours, and to an equally high standard. Unfortunately, I believe that thus far we are not achieving that.
Rehman Chishti
I completely agree. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done some brilliant work, but we have an immense amount more to do. I also agree on the first point. The hon. Gentleman has an amazing wife, who made him become a cat lover and animal lover. I am not married yet, but if I get married, I will need somebody who likes cats, so that we can get a cat. Coming in and out of London, I do not have time to have a cat; we are talking about animal welfare, and cats must be given time. That is key. His point about supporting and doing the right thing as parliamentarians—not simply talking about something but pushing for the right framework to be put in place—is absolutely right.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the role that cats play in the social fabric of our society, particularly for the elderly or vulnerable? They play a vital role in providing the comfort and companionship that those people are looking for.
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have seen the PDSA’s PAW report, which talked about cats’ five welfare needs, one of which is companionship. We talk about loneliness and the Government doing the right thing and people having the required environment to be happy, and what cats and animals do is absolutely amazing, so he makes a valid point.
My first point is about the compulsory microchipping of cats. I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 25 October. He said that the proposals in my presentation Bill on the compulsory microchipping of cats and ensuring that car accidents involving cats are reported, as they are when dogs are involved, were very reasonable, and that he would ask his civil servants to look into the matter. I take the Secretary of State at his word, and if he says that the proposals are very reasonable, it therefore means that to do the opposite would be very unreasonable.
In the light of the Secretary of State’s commitment and his saying that the proposals are very reasonable, I ask the Minister: are cats less important than dogs? A statutory instrument requiring dogs to be compulsorily microchipped was introduced in 2015, so there does not need to be primary legislation; such a change could be done through a statutory instrument. At the time it was said that such a change would be done with dogs first to see how the process worked, and that extending it further would then be looked at. That was in 2015. I know that the Government and Parliament work slowly, but three years to see how a system works is long enough.
I know the Minister. He and I have been here for the same amount of time—eight years. He is a wonderful man who cares passionately about animal welfare and doing the right thing, and he listens to what people have to say. A petition on change.org, “Help me to change the law for Cats involved in RTA’s”, received 377,000 signatures. A parliamentary petition about microchipping had 33,413 signatures. A petition to introduce compulsory microchip scanning for vets, rescues and authorities had 70,800 signatures. That demonstrates that people out there want Parliament to do the right thing, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says is our duty. Ministers can see the public interest in this area through the petitions put forward and the contributions of Members today and in previous debates.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned microchip legislation. It is also true that the Road Traffic Act 1988 could be amended. Section 170 requires motorists to stop and report accidents involving animals, including horses, cattle, mules, sheep, pigs and dogs, but not cats. Does he agree that it is time to amend that legislation?
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend knows a lot about this because she chairs the all-party parliamentary group on cats and has done amazing work on this issue. She is absolutely right. We were told that legislation does not cover cats is because they are free-roaming. I say to everyone, “Let’s get away from technicality. Let’s do the right thing and let’s look at what counterparts around the world do on this issue.”
I am grateful to Mandy at CatsMatter. She gave me a copy of a piece of legislation, which I have with me today. It is article 26 of the agriculture and markets law from the State of New York Department of Agriculture and Markets. Rather than using the RTA, we could have a specific section in animal welfare provision. Section 601 in that document is entitled “Leaving scene of injury to certain animals without reporting”. It states:
“Any person operating a motor vehicle which shall strike and injure any horse, dog, cat or animal classified as cattle shall stop and endeavor to locate the owner or custodian of such animal”.
If the free-roaming issue is the reason why we cannot amend the legislation here—the RTA—I point out that cats are also free roaming in the United States, but there the issue has been addressed through separate animal welfare legislation.
I was going to come later to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), but I shall come to it now. It is absolutely at the heart of this. If an individual is going along at night and knowingly hits a cat, is there a moral obligation on them? Many people would already act, but I make to the Minister the same point that I made earlier: are cats less important than dogs? We have legislation, but we argue over a technicality. I have read Hansard for when the matter was debated previously in the other place: “Well, the issue is free roaming and we would define ‘free roaming’ this way.” Let us avoid the RTA and go with animal welfare legislation and do that because it is the right thing to do.
If someone knowingly strikes a cat, they should do the same thing as they would if they struck a dog. They would try to find the owner. If they could not find the owner, they would report the accident. This point was made to me when I asked people to clarify the matter. They said, “Should one then report it to the police? That might be onerous for the police in terms of resources.” I say, “Well, we do it for dogs, but if you don’t have to report the accident to the police, you could report it to a vet or to the local authority. You could do a number of different things.” Technicality can be avoided. This is about doing the right thing in the first place. I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That was the second part of my speech; I am grateful that it has now become the first part.
Let me quote from the wonderful charity Animals Lost and Found in Kent on the issue of compulsory microchipping:
“Our main job at Animals Lost and Found in Kent Ltd is to reunite animals, our job is extremely hard as 5 cats out of 10 are chipped, the other 5 we can’t get home and end up going through the rescue centres, that isn’t fair or the best for the cat’s welfare as the cat gets confused, upset, stressed and can shut down. Stress in cats can be very dangerous for them and can lead to big problems like a blocked bladder, urinary tract infections and urine crystals which can lead to death if not treated. Stress also brings out more sinister problems in cats like the flu. But if the cat was chipped, we could get the cat home where they belong.”
That quote is from the points given to me by Animals Lost and Found in Kent.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) talked about Cats Protection. I am grateful for the comments and notes given to me by Cats Protection on this matter. It says:
“In England a survey conducted for Cats Protection showed that 27% of owned cats are not microchipped. Compulsory microchipping of dogs is already in force across the whole of the UK…In the last 12 months 62% of the cats taken in by Cats Protection’s UK Adoption Centres were not microchipped. Unlike collars, microchips don’t come off, or put cats at risk of collar-related injuries.”
I say to the Minister that it would not be difficult to introduce the legislation that we are calling for. That could be done. Why is it so important? Cats Protection says:
“Failure to microchip a cat can result in the following problems:
Difficulty reuniting a cat that goes missing with its owner
Cats are needlessly rehomed because they are believed to be strays
Worry about a pet cat in the event of an accident
Vets are unable to contact cat owners in any case of emergency
Ownership disputes are difficult to resolve
Detection of cat theft may be difficult”.
Are those not good enough reasons to say that we have to act swiftly?
I have had representations from CatsMatter, Cats Protection, the PDSA and Blue Cross, which I will refer to shortly. If I send the Minister those representations, will he be kind enough to respond to all the points that they have made? In addition, will the Minister be kind enough to meet me and representatives of all the charities that I have mentioned, which have been supporting and making this case, along with my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, who chairs the APPG?
I am looking at the time and will mention just two other points. First, the Blue Cross animal hospitals do amazing work. I am grateful to Blue Cross for allowing me to visit one of its centres and see its great work. On microchipping, it says that in 2017, 24% of cats admitted to Blue Cross were considered to be strays, but it is not uncommon for owned animals to be presented as strays because they are not microchipped or do not have updated details on their chip. I agree with those who say, “There’s no point in microchipping if you don’t ensure that the details are correct.” That has to be addressed. The other point is, where will the money come from? Charities such as Blue Cross already do the work voluntarily. The cost is not significant; it can be done. If the issue is cost, I say to the Minister: it is not that expensive; it can be done. Ways and avenues can be found, because it is the right thing to do. Blue Cross says that out of a total of 5,057 cats admitted to Blue Cross for rehoming in 2017, a staggering 80% were not microchipped. If the legislation were amended and compulsory microchipping rules brought into play, that would address a number of those points.
My second point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has already brought to the fore, is about reporting after an accident. I say this to the Minister: if a jurisdiction in the United States addresses the issue of free roaming by covering it under animal welfare provisions, I think we should move away from amending the Road Traffic Act. That is why the presentation Bill that I put forward is called the Cats Bill. It does not talk specifically about the Road Traffic Act, because the matter can be addressed the other way round.
What I am calling for is the right thing to do. It ties in with what the Government are already trying to do. They have done a brilliant job on animal welfare, but a lot more needs to be done. I have seen the joy that cats bring. In October, for my 40th, I was in Little Rock, Arkansas, with my good friend French Hill. He is a Congressman down there and he has cats called JJ and Timber. I was not there long, but in the short time I was there, I became attached to them—I would see them when I came back after a day out. Cats are amazing creatures. They bring a lot of happiness, and I just think that if they bring us happiness, we have a moral obligation to support them—to make sure that they get the right support.
I therefore say to the Minister, who is a good man, from the bottom of my heart: can we please not just say today, “We will look to address this at some point in the future”? Short term, medium term, long term—what is the timescale now for getting this provision on to the statute book and putting it into practice?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing the debate. I do need to correct him on one thing, having been raised in the county town of East Sussex—Lewes. It is pronounced “Lewis”, not “Looze”, otherwise, a certain Member here will be quite angry—but we have set that straight.
I am very keen to confirm to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have turned up for the debate—I am pleased to see so many—that of course I will be more than willing to meet him and the various welfare groups that he has talked about to respond to their concerns expressed in writing, and to see how we can best move this matter further forward. There are also other things that I want to do on the back of my hon. Friend’s very well argued speech. That may not satisfy all his demands, but we will move forward on this agenda. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) will be more than welcome at that meeting as well.
I do think it is time that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham bought his own cat. He has made such a compelling case. He has shown how it can help people in their political affairs and to find their ideal partner. You never know: it might be the right thing for him to do in his own life.
Rehman Chishti
I should follow the example of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
David Rutley
Yes. It is great to see so many hon. Members with such deep personal experience with cats and involvement with welfare charities. Cats are cherished members of the family for many people. They bring great joy in homes across the country, and we need to recognise that. We also need to understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham pointed out in his excellent speech, the distress and concern it causes when a cat gets lost and people want to find out where it might be.
I join Members in their comments praising various groups. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) is no longer in her place, but she mentioned Stapeley Grange. The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) praised the excellent work of Cats Protection. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talks about his wife’s committed work in animal welfare in various debates, and I am pleased that that work also extends to cats.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
In Suffolk, we have a very dedicated individual in Kathleen Lusted. She is now approaching 100 and has given almost her whole life to looking after and protecting cats that have gone missing and providing them with new homes. She has almost single-handedly set up a Cats Protection League branch in Framlingham and Saxmundham. Will the Minister join me in thanking her and congratulating her on her life’s work protecting and looking after cats in east Suffolk?
David Rutley
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating his constituent on her work in Framlingham and thanking her for it. If he will provide details, I will not only put my thanks to her on the record, but I will write to her, too, given that it has been her life’s work. I appreciate the contribution that my hon. Friend has made in putting that before us.
There are so many good causes and good welfare groups that take the cause further forward, whether that is Cats Protection, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home or Blue Cross. They are absolutely committed to the welfare of cats and various other animals. Through their dedicated volunteers, they ensure that in many cases cats that have been lost can be reunited with their owners. They also rehome cats.
Before I get on to the substantive point of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) raised an important point about air weapons. I know his interest in these matters and I recognise, along with many others, the widespread concern about the shooting of cats with air weapons. Anyone who does that is liable to prosecution for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. The maximum sentence is currently six months in prison, but that could be extended with new legislation that we are looking to put to the House in due course. A review of air weapons regulation was announced in October 2017. We are now considering what needs to happen with the licensing system and will announce the outcome shortly. That will help address some of his concerns.
Sir Greg Knight
I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. While he is reflecting on the matter, will he look at what has happened in Northern Ireland, which has a system of licensing for airguns? The number of cats reported in the press as being shot has dropped.
David Rutley
I must confess that I was not aware of that. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising what goes on in Northern Ireland with me. I am sure that the hon. Member for Strangford is aware of that, too. I will follow up with officials and see what we can learn.
David Rutley
On that point, yes, but then I had better move on to microchipping, otherwise I will be held to account.
Mr Reed
Last year, the RSPCA reported that it had reached a five-year high for the level of airgun attacks on pets. The vast majority of pets attacked were cats. Will the review that the Minister is engaged in also look at where airguns can be advertised and sold? We had an incident in Norbury recently in which a pawnbroker’s shop turned itself into an airgun centre and had a big display of what looked like semi-automatic rifles, but were airguns, in the shop window on a high street right here in south London?
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to our attention. I am not the Minister responsible for the matter, so I do not want to tread beyond where I should, but I have seen similar incidents and reports in my constituency. I will follow up on the very important point he raises and get back to him on how wide the review will go. I hope it will address such issues, but I will confirm that with him in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham talked about his private Member’s Bill, which takes forward a serious issue. He also highlighted how the subject has been raised in numerous petitions. The sheer number of people who have signed the petitions highlights that the Members in the Chamber are not alone; many people are very concerned about the issue. The Government recommend that any owner should microchip their cat to increase the chance of being reunited with it if it gets lost. In April this year, we updated the statutory cat welfare code with the welcome collaboration of Cats Protection and others. The code now more strongly emphasises the benefits of microchipping cats.
Microchipping technology has vastly improved the chances that lost pets will be reunited with their owners. For a relatively small, one-off cost of about £25, people can have greater confidence that their beloved cat can be identified. Why would someone not want to do that? As the head of cattery at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Lindsey Quinlan, has said, while the microchipping procedure is short and simple,
“the return on their value is immeasurable”.
It is therefore good to see that the proportion of cats that are microchipped has grown in recent years.
My hon. Friend highlighted the good report by the PDSA showing that 68% of cats are microchipped. However, a recent survey by Cats Protection found that the majority of the cats taken to its adoption centres in the past 12 months were not microchipped. It is heartbreaking to think that some of those cats may not have been reunited with their families simply because of the lack of a microchip. That is why I strongly endorse Cats Protection’s campaign to promote cat microchipping. The Government will work with Cats Protection and other animal welfare charities so that the proportion of cats that are microchipped continues to grow.
In England, compulsory microchipping of dogs was introduced through secondary legislation due to the public safety risk posed by stray dogs. That does not mean that cat welfare is any less important than dog welfare; it is just that there is not the same risk associated with cats from a safety perspective. For that reason, the microchipping of cats is not compulsory, but we strongly encourage owners and breeders to do it. That is why the Government’s cat welfare code promotes microchipping on two grounds. First, as I have already mentioned, microchipping gives cats the best chance of being identified when lost. Secondly and just as importantly, a lost cat that has a microchip is more likely to receive prompt veterinary treatment when needed. In that way, micro- chipping helps to protect more cats from pain, suffering, injury and disease, as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
I am grateful to Cats Protection for its support in developing the cat welfare code. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials remain engaged with the issue. I commit to meeting Cats Protection in January, whether as part of the roundtable or separately, to take forward this important agenda.
In the limited time available, it is important to highlight some other actions I would like to take in response to this important debate. As has been said, under the Road Traffic Act 1988, drivers are required to stop and report accidents involving certain working animals, including cattle, horses and dogs. That does not currently extend to cats. However, the Highway Code advises drivers to report accidents involving any animal to the police. That should lead to many owners being notified when their cats are killed on roads. I am pleased that it is established good practice for local authorities to scan any dog or cat found on the streets so that the owner can be informed.
Following today’s debate, I will meet the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) to discuss how we can work together to further promote best practice. Highways England has clear guidelines for contractors to follow when they find a deceased dog. That process is designed with owners in mind, giving them the best chance of being informed of the incident that has occurred. The process laid out in the network management manual currently applies only to dogs. I would like to see what could be done to extend it to cats, and I hope other Members agree. The area is the responsibility of the Department for Transport. Following today’s debate, I will work with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) to explore what the Government can do in this area.
To conclude, I would like to say how important it has been to have this debate today. It has brought the issue very much to my attention as a relatively new Minister for Animal Welfare. I am extremely grateful for that. I would like to highlight how important animal welfare is to the Government and to DEFRA.
Rehman Chishti
The Minister has made a general point about looking to what further can be done. Rather than amending the 1988 Act, can we not put post-accident reporting for cats in animal welfare legislation, like in the United States? Will he go away and ensure we can look at compulsory microchipping, as well as the animal welfare perspective post-accident?
David Rutley
I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. Of course I will go away and look at his points. He has made a compelling case. I, and the Government, feel some sympathy with what he says. There are practical differences between dogs and cats in terms of public safety, but notwithstanding that, there is more we want to do to promote these issues. I will gladly meet him and take forward the actions and meetings I have talked about already.
Question put and agreed to.
NHS: Staffing Levels
(5 years, 4 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
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered staffing levels in the NHS.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to lead this debate and I thank hon. Members for being present. I know that many are eager to contribute, and the fact that they have taken the time to be here, during one of Parliament’s more eventful weeks, emphasises the strength of feeling in the House about staffing levels in the NHS. I also thank the many organisations that have contacted me, offered support and shared their research.
It is clear that the issue of staffing in the NHS is a great and growing concern to many. Indeed, the case of my local NHS trust inspired me to apply for this debate. Most of my constituents rely on the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust for a range of acute hospital-based and community services. The trust serves not just the people of Batley and Spen, but more than half a million people across Wakefield and North Kirklees.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing this important debate. My constituents also use the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust. There are still several hundred nursing vacancies there, and that is having a significant impact on the delivery of patient care. Does she agree that the chaos of the current Brexit situation is not helping to recruit nurses, potentially from the European Union?
Tracy Brabin
I shall go on to discuss that in more detail, but my hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. We have both been in meetings with the trust where that has proved to be of great concern to it.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
On a similar subject, is the hon. Lady aware that Oxford University Hospitals agreed today to fund the cost of obtaining settled status for EU nationals who work there?
Tracy Brabin
That is something that we have discussed with our trust. The cost should not necessarily fall on the shoulders of the people we want to employ, so that seems like a good thing.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
For Sherwood Forest Hospitals trust, which covers King’s Mill Hospital in my constituency, the latest figures show 200 nursing vacancies and, since nursing bursaries were abolished, a 32% decline in those applying to do it. Is it not time to bring nursing bursaries back?
Tracy Brabin
I absolutely agree that training for this most lauded position should not be done at the cost of nurses themselves.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that we must have fewer medical quangos and more medical professionals in their white doctors’ coats seeing patients; less cleaning up of paper trails and more cleaning up in wards and A&Es; and funding that is targeted at frontline staffing and reasonable rates of pay?
Tracy Brabin
Certainly, funding and support should be given to frontline staffing. I will go on to talk about how I see that playing out.
The Mid Yorkshire trust is a major employer of about 8,000 members of staff who operate across three hospital sites: Pinderfields Hospital, Pontefract Hospital and Dewsbury and District Hospital, which is in my constituency. Like many trusts across the country, the trust is feeling the pressure on recruitment. In the most up-to-date figures, which were given to me directly by the trust this week, there is a 10% vacancy rate. That includes 95 full-time-equivalent posts for medical staff, 209 vacancies for full-time registered nurses, and vacancies for all other posts covered by the trust. The trust tells me that its key workforce challenge remains recruiting registered nurses and junior doctors in training. Those staff shortages lead to expensive cover being required— a bill that is ultimately paid by the taxpayer.
I am pleased that the trust has taken steps to mitigate against staffing shortages, including an extensive recruitment programme where vacancies across the trust are advertised and marketed widely. It has introduced a new associate nurse role in partnership with a local university, and expanded and increased the number of apprenticeship opportunities to offer different routes into careers in the NHS. It has held open theatre days to promote particularly difficult roles to recruit for, such as operating department practitioners. Finally, it has increased the number of nurses and doctors on the local temporary staff bank, which reduces its reliance on, and the cost of, commercial agency staff. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that that is all great.
Despite that work, problems remain. I must put on record my concern that staffing shortages can lead to problems for patients. The ambulatory emergency care unit at Dewsbury and District Hospital opened in 2015 to care for patients who needed a quick diagnosis and treatment, and who could be treated without the need for admission to a hospital bed. Since July, it has been closed because of staff shortages and it will remain closed for the foreseeable future. It had also been closed from the end of December last year to early March. Patients now face the lengthy and expensive trip to Pinderfields Hospital.
In the most recent inspection at Mid Yorks, the results of which were announced last week, the safety of services was deemed to require improvement, which will cause deep concern to my constituents. We are now told that the harsh funding climate for our NHS, which has existed since 2010, is coming to an end—austerity is over.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As the daughter of a nurse, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I know she is a proud member of the GMB, like me, so I declare an interest in highlighting its survey, which showed that 78% of NHS and ambulance workers are incredibly concerned about staffing levels. Does she agree with a nurse from Barnsley who said that we need more registered nurses and trained support staff, not untrained volunteers, who are sometimes being used?
Tracy Brabin
My sister is also a nurse. When someone has a nurse in the family, they understand how hard they work. My hon. Friend must be psychic, because I am about to go on to that point.
When it comes to the recruitment and retention of NHS staff, it could not be further from the truth that austerity is over. The Royal College of Nursing did not mince its words when it said:
“The UK is experiencing a nursing workforce crisis”,
particularly in England. With one in three nurses due to retire within a decade, we are looking at a perfect storm of increasing vacancies across health and care.
Paula Sherriff
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, as a direct result of staffing shortages at Dewsbury and District Hospital, the midwife-led birthing unit has had to be closed several times? September was a particularly bad month for closures. That has a traumatic effect on mums-to-be, who expect to give birth there but turn up and get sent elsewhere.
Tracy Brabin
Capacity, particularly in midwifery, is a massive issue, and midwife recruitment is also a problem. A mum who is about to have a baby wants to make sure that they are guaranteed a bed and a midwife who will be with them throughout the process, so of course that is a concern. There are almost 41,000 vacant nursing posts in the NHS and it is estimated that that number will grow to almost 48,000 by 2023—just five short years away.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Lady is being generous. Does she agree that the problem with the recruitment and retention of staff also stretches to our mental health services? In Cumbria, three years ago, the Government promised a specialist one-to-one eating disorder service for young people, which has yet to be delivered. Does she agree that it is not good enough for the Government to make promises that they cannot deliver because they cannot recruit the staff?
Tracy Brabin
We are seeing increasing problems around recruitment and retention in mental health services, which I will go on to. We know that nurses are heroes of our health service and that they will always voice their concerns.
A survey conducted by the RCN in 2017 had some deeply worrying results. More than half of the nurses said that care was compromised on the last shift and more than 40% said that no action was taken when they raised concerns about staffing. If there was any doubt about the commitment of nurses, nine in 10 were not paid for extra unplanned time worked in the NHS. Unpaid time worked by nurses in the NHS saves the NHS hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
I am not just talking about nurses and the worryingly low levels of recruitment. The Royal College of Physicians informs me that in Yorkshire and Humber 36% of physician consultant posts advertised were not filled. Across the UK, a total of 45% of advertised consultant posts went unfilled, due to the lack of suitable applicants. The RCP believes that we need to double the medical school places to 15,000 a year to alleviate this problem in the long term and it is seriously hard to disagree with that assessment.
The RCP is also calling for investment in public health initiatives, which I am sure is another thing that we all agree on. The desperate need for more mental health staff is well reported. The consultant psychiatrist vacancy rate in the northern and Yorkshire region, which Batley and Spen falls under, is 11.7%, which is higher than the average consultant psychiatry vacancy rate in England. One in 10 consultant psychiatrist posts are vacant. Doctors specialising in mental health are uniquely placed to look at a person’s brain, body and psyche. Such specialists will only become more important, so I ask the Minister to update Members on his plans to meet the target of 570 junior doctors specialising in psychiatry by 2020-21 and to say what plans he has to ensure that all trainee doctors have experience of working in psychiatric settings?
The British Medical Association has provided information on the potential impact of Brexit on staffing levels in the NHS. Nearly 10% of doctors working in the UK are from the European economic area. Doctors, as well as many other professionals, make a massive contribution to our NHS. However, the BMA warns that many EEA doctors continue to feel unwelcome and uncertain about their future here. Given the uncertainty that we have seen in the past few days, I imagine that that feeling will not change any time soon. The results could be devastating, with more than a third of doctors from the EU considering moving away from our country. That is the last thing we need, as hospitals are already chronically understaffed, with more than one in four respondents to a BMA survey reporting that rota gaps are so serious and frequent that they cause significant problems for patient safety.
Alarmingly, some doctors feel bullied into taking on extra work. It is clear that something needs to change, particularly now we are in winter again. There are too few staff, who are too stretched, and trusts across the country are struggling to fill vacancies. However, in order to fix a problem, we need to know whose remit it is to provide a solution. Shockingly, there are no specific legal duties or responsibilities at UK Government level to ensure that health and social care providers have enough staff to provide safe and effective care to meet the needs of the population. Health Education England has some powers related to the higher education supply. In practice, however, those powers relate only to the funding for the 50% of their courses that nursing students spend on placements. Health Education England no longer commissions higher education university places, meaning that it is responsive to students signing up for nursing courses rather than proactively seeking them based on areas of need and workforce planning.
We know that the number of European workers in the NHS has fallen dramatically since the referendum. Mid Yorks recruited highly skilled workers from the Philippines, but delays to visa applications meant that 50% of them have now gone elsewhere and into other jobs. We need to do better than that.
The case is clear to me and to many others that we need a proactive and accountable power-holding body that makes robust assessments of population need, and uses that need to calculate the workforce requirements. No action has been taken to assess the level of population need for health and social care support now or in the future. Nobody has calculated how many nurses are needed to meet those needs safely and effectively. No workforce strategy is in place to set up the mechanism through which new registered nurses can be generated through a supply line.
Workforce plans are not consistently available and when they are they are based on affordability and finance, rather than on the expertise and skills mix of staff required to care for patients. Plans are limited in their ability to make effective change. Providers may identify a need for more nursing posts but then find themselves unable to fill them. Vacant posts stay vacant and gaps on the frontline are filled by more expensive bank and agency staff, and—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock)—by volunteers, or substituted lower-qualified staff. Patient care is left undone, with lengthening waiting lists.
That is the sad truth of where we are and when the Minister responds I would be grateful to know what plans are in place to enforce accountability for the NHS workforce. Simon Stevens has confirmed that the long-term plan for the NHS could not definitely deal with the NHS workforce and there are serious concerns that without investment a new plan will ultimately fail.
Six years on from the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it is still unclear which organisation is accountable for workforce strategy. Too often, no one is taking responsibility. Health Education England has been consulted, but it has failed to deliver a workforce strategy. Now is the time for leadership and action, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The debate can last until 5.30 pm. I have to call the Front Benchers no later than 5.7 pm. Four Members are seeking to catch my eye. The guideline limits for the Front Benchers’ speeches are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister, and then Tracy Brabin will have two or three minutes at the end of the debate to sum it up. There are 20 minutes of Back-Bench time before I call the Front Benchers, so there will have to be a five-minute time limit on Back Benchers’ contributions.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on securing this debate and on highlighting the biggest challenge facing the NHS: the creeping workforce crisis that has been evolving for some time now. We are now seeing that crisis beginning, in real terms, to affect patient care.
The hon. Lady was right to highlight the fact that a lack of staff in some parts of the country means that operations are being cancelled and beds are being closed. She was also right to point out the challenges that Brexit poses to the recruitment and retention of frontline NHS staff; in the past decade, we have been increasingly reliant on European Union staff coming to work in the UK—before that, it was staff from outside the EU who provided most of the overseas workforce in the NHS. I am sure that all of us would like to put on the record our support for the excellent work that NHS staff from the UK and from all over the world do in caring for patients.
I will also do what I should have done at the beginning of my speech and draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a practising NHS hospital doctor working in mental health services.
Dr Poulter
I will not, because of the time limit and because I want to let other people speak; I am sure that we can talk about this issue in detail after the debate.
Very briefly, Mr Hollobone, the Government have made a number of promises about NHS staffing and yet, unfortunately, those promises are failing to come to fruition. In 2015, there was a promise of 5,000 more GPs. Recently, I submitted a written parliamentary question about how much progress had been made in realising that target but I did not get an adequate answer. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us in his concluding remarks by saying how close we are to realising that target of 5,000 additional full-time GPs.
I would also like to highlight some of the challenges in community and mental health services. Very often in this Chamber, we talk about hospitals, and very often the NHS is seen through the prism of that acute sector, but the key challenge to keeping people out of hospital is doing more in the community, building up community mental and physical health services—and they are the very services that are seeing reductions in frontline staff.
I want to touch briefly on mental health. We know that the number of full-time-equivalent mental health nurses fell by 6,000 between 2010 and March 2018, including a reduction of more than 1,800 in learning disability nurses alone. The number of child and adolescent mental health service and learning disability consultant psychiatrists has also slightly declined over the past decade, and many parts of the country, particularly outside London, are struggling to fill higher registrar training posts in those services.
Perhaps more concerning is that the number of junior doctors in specialist psychiatry training—core and higher psychiatric trainees who will become the consultant psychiatrists of tomorrow—has also fallen, by 490 full-time equivalent doctors, from 3,187 in 2009 to 2,697 in March 2018. [Interruption.] The civil servants are rapidly checking my figures; they are from answers to parliamentary questions, so they are absolutely correct.
That is a woeful record of decline in the psychiatric and mental health workforce, and it must be corrected. If the Government are serious about their rhetoric on mental health, about improving the quality of provision for people with poor mental health, they need to recognise that the workforce has already declined. Even if there is the promised increase in numbers, it will be from a lower baseline than that of about a decade ago.
The only way to deliver the expansion in services that patients deserve—for example, specialist eating disorder services in Cumbria or East Anglia—is by having a much more serious approach to the recruitment and retention of mental health staff and by paying premiums to attract both doctors to work in CAMHS and people to work in parts of the country where there is a shortage of mental health staff. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on calling this vital debate.
I remember the challenging years of the mid-1990s, when I was working as a physio in the NHS. During that crisis time, I never knew when I would get home. Today’s scenario reminds me of the dying years of a Tory Government—the parallels are so strong.
In York, I read the Care Quality Commission reports in detail, and although the care given by our NHS staff is excellent, the real challenge that I pull out of the results of CQC reports is the staffing crisis. My local hospital currently has 59 doctor vacancies, and there are 580 nursing vacancies in bands 4 to 7, 312 of which are in bands 5 to 7. The trust has done everything it can to recruit. It went to Spain and recruited 40 Spanish nurses, 37 of whom left after a very short period. The reality is that NHS staffing is in crisis and that affects patient care.
Last year, the trust had to spend £8.5 million on agency staff. That pushed a trust that is already struggling because the funding formula does not work for York into further deficit, which has an impact on its control and on the resources it can get for the winter crisis—York had some of the highest levels of influenza last year. The Minister, therefore, must ensure that the money works, as well as addressing staffing.
I want briefly to look at primary care because, as we have heard, we need early intervention across all ages to keep people out of hospital. Rightly, the Government looked to increase the number of health visitors, and by 2015 the figure was up to 10,309, but since then we have seen a 23.8% fall, down to 7,852, meaning that young people are not getting the input they need. School nursing figures have also fallen by 25% since 2010. So we have a real crisis in our primary care workforce, and also in mental health, as the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said. Certainly we feel that in York, whether in the community or the hospital environment.
Rachael Maskell
I am going to continue.
The trust is doing everything it can to recruit, but it is impossible to recruit because the national pool of mental health staff is far too small. Therefore, it is vital that we consider the solution, which comes down, as has been said, to workforce planning. We need a partnership approach to planning the workforce. We need to understand the changing demographics and the increasing mental health challenges in order to put the right planning in place, but trusts will not be able to recruit unless the staffing framework is right. The removal of the bursary scheme has been seriously detrimental, particularly to the recruitment of mature students into nursing. People are giving up a job, but their staying in the profession for longer will pay dividends. Students have to pay to travel to placements, and I remember what that was like, so it is really important that they have bursaries.
Secondly on workforce planning, we need to look at how we educate healthcare professionals across the board. I remember discussions at a national level with the trade unions on that very issue, about needing to find a different way. In some countries they bring a real foundation into NHS training so that everyone works together in the first 18 months or two years of their training and has a breadth of understanding of medicine before going off to specialise. We, instead, train in traditional old silos of jobs that have clearly blended over the years, and we must look once again at how we structure that.
Thirdly, we need to look at the “Agenda for Change” package. There is no doubt that it is hard to recruit because people are poorly paid in the NHS and can be better paid elsewhere. Given the stress levels and the antisocial hours that people work, we need to look once again at the remuneration of our NHS workforce. Finally, the knowledge and skills framework has consistently been underutilised by the Government and NHS employers, and it is vital that we go back to that framework of professional development in the NHS.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I declare my interest as a nurse who is still on the Nursing and Midwifery Council, or NMC, register. I speak, therefore, with first- hand experience about having to deal with staffing shortages during more than 20 years of working in the NHS. Staffing problems have always been there, but I welcome the debate that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) has secured because we must recognise the issues that many hospital trusts and community services are experiencing.
I welcome last month’s NMC figures, which show an increase of more than 4,000 nurses joining the register in the past 12 months, a significant percentage of whom were UK-trained nurses. There was also an increase of 3,000 UK nurses compared with this time last year. I welcome those figures, but that is not to say that there is not a staffing problem across the NHS.
I want to focus on some of the solutions from my experience that would make a real difference out there in the workforce. I understand the sentiments of the hon. Members for Batley and Spen and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about the bursary scheme, but I trained on that scheme myself and it is far from the panacea that has been portrayed in recent years. We were paid a pittance—£400 a month—for the three years of our training. Yes, it paid for travel and expenses, but not for much else.
Someone training as a nurse has to do the minimum hours to get on to the register, so it is very difficult for them to have an additional job, as other students would. Often times they are mature students and have other commitments, such as children and family responsibilities, and an additional part-time job is almost impossible to hold down. Life on a bursary was tough, and it often explained the high drop-out rate during the three years.
The system I would prefer, and have always advocated, is the degree apprenticeship route. During my time in this place, I have been doing bank shifts at my old hospital with student nurses who are now on the degree apprenticeship route: it is a far better system, and we need to upscale it as a matter of course. Not only are student nurses earning while they are learning; they are part of the workforce, which is a point that the bursary scheme missed completely. Student nurses were university students, but not necessarily part of the working environment, and often found it tough to move into that environment, because they were not seen as key members of the workforce.
The degree apprenticeship route also means that when students work for hospitals or community trusts during their degree apprenticeship, they are often being paid by those trusts, which are then able to accurately predict the number of students coming through the system. That was different under the bursary system: trusts just had to wait and see which newly qualified nurses applied for their vacant posts. For long-term workforce planning, having those student nurses as part of the team means that trusts have an idea of who is likely to come forward when they qualify. There are a number of positives, and I push for the Government to roll out that degree apprenticeship system—maybe not just in nursing, but in other healthcare professional specialities.
I will briefly touch on flexible working. We are under the misapprehension that internal rotation and a shift-based system means there is flexible working for staff in the NHS, which there absolutely is not. In most areas, people are forced to do internal rotation, whether in the community or in the hospital-based system, and that is increasing as we move towards a seven-day-a-week service. If young parents with children are all of a sudden put on a week of nights with a week’s notice, and have no childcare provision, that makes it almost impossible for them to hold down their job.
In the good old days when I first started, people were able to do a permanent nights system, to do permanent weekends, or to choose to work evening shifts. That is all gone now: they are forced to do internal rotation. I say to the Minister that the NHS needs to look at a flexible working system for its staff, because if it does, it is more likely to hold on to the excellent staff who keep the NHS going.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on having secured this important debate. I have a little bit of a family connection to the NHS, as I am the daughter of a GP, but it is an honour to follow colleagues of all parties who have direct experience of working in the NHS. I welcome their having shared that experience with us.
Staffing levels in the NHS are an important issue, which affects my local NHS trust in Worcestershire as well. I am in close contact with that trust and with staff at the Alexandra hospital in Redditch, and I very much hear that concern; I hear it from my constituents all the time. I agree that it is essential that we increase the NHS workforce at all levels, from nurses to consultants and, particularly, GPs. We are now in a situation in which demand is rising fast: the population is growing, it is ageing, and people are living longer. That is partly due to the success of our fantastic NHS, and the doctors and nurses who work within it, but it does create one of the biggest problems that the NHS faces.
I must have met every Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care over the past few months, and I am looking forward to meeting the Secretary of State later today, when I will be pressing for more details about a welcome capital investment in breast cancer services at the Alexandra hospital and across Worcestershire. There has also been more investment in my local hospital, to keep the frailty unit open and open a new urgent care centre. However, all those services have to be staffed, and we need the stability and security of knowing they will continue to be there, serving my constituents. I welcome those changes, but in previous meetings, I have consistently pressed the issue of staffing levels. I am encouraged that the Government are focused on meeting these challenges and providing the NHS with the workforce we need it to have.
At the moment, one of the biggest recruitment drives in the NHS’s history is taking place. It is intended to increase the number of doctors and nurses trained in the NHS by 25%—an increase of 1,500 places a year. Steps such as those will play a crucial role in supporting the future NHS workforce, but as Members have highlighted, the immediate pressures are still here and must be addressed now. Nowhere is this issue more acute than in general practice, and I often write to constituents who have complained about the waiting times for seeing their GP. Since becoming the MP for Redditch in 2017, I have pushed for change; I am pleased that the Government are listening and now intend to hire 5,000 more GPs and 5,000 additional GP staff by 2020.
I also welcome the fact that the Home Office has exempted doctors and nurses from the tier 2 visa quota system for non-EEA skilled migrant workers. That will enable the NHS to recruit more quickly and widely, especially considering that NHS recruitment demands account for 40% of tier 2 places. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care have said time and again that we must get the message out that we want EU nationals to stay in this country, and we need them in our NHS. That has been unilaterally guaranteed by this country, with or without a deal, so please let us get that message out to our wonderful NHS staff.
There are positive steps, and the progress that has already been made should be welcomed. In my county of Worcestershire, the total number of staff employed rose by almost 7% between August 2013 and August of this year, to over 5,000. [Interruption.]
Rachel Maclean
I believe I was noting the positive progress in Worcestershire. The total number of staff employed rose by 7% to more than 5,000 between August 2013 and August this year, and the number of doctors has increased by 5% . The number of nurses has gone up by nearly 8%. There are now nearly 1,400 nurses working in Worcestershire acute hospitals. I have been to the wards, and spoken to the nurses at the Alex who tell me about the positive recruitment days that they have held at the University of Worcestershire. I very much welcome that work, and I hope that it will continue to bear fruit.
It is vital to maintain the morale of our staff, and I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) said regarding flexible working. It is important that we look at the issues in the round. As a former employer myself, I know how important it is to get every aspect of the employment offer right. I welcome the new contract deals that will result in a 6.5% pay rise for more than 1 million NHS workers this year. That means that those on the lowest salaries in the NHS will see some of the largest proportionate pay rises. Many nurses and healthcare assistants will enjoy pay increases of at least 25%. We must get the pay offer right to ensure that we encourage our NHS staff both to enter the profession and to stay.
I thank the Minister for attending the debate. I want to hear more about the strategy. I welcome the progress that has been made, and I implore him to continue, steadfast, in that pursuit.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, declare an interest as a longstanding NHS worker of more than 30 years.
Healthcare is not delivered by machines or buildings; it is delivered by people. People are the core of the NHS. The problem relates to workforce, and it is hitting all four nations. Although Scotland has the highest ratio of every group of healthcare staff per head of population, we too face challenges. We have a 4.8% nurse vacancy rate in Scotland, but in England it is more than 11.5%. The Royal College of Nursing says that there are 41,000 nurse vacancies at the moment, and if action is not taken, that will rise to 48,000.
As other Members mentioned, since the introduction of the bursary in 2015, there has been a one third drop in applications. Acceptances in England have gone down by almost 4%, whereas in Scotland they have gone up by almost 14.5% over the same period. The bursary is having a huge impact, particularly on mature students, who might already have a degree and have therefore also been hit by the removal of the post graduate bursary that allows a nurse to be trained in just two years.
There has been a 15% drop in mature students, which is hitting those with mental health issues and learning disabilities in particular, as those specialities tend to attract the more mature nurse student. There has been a 13% drop in mental health nursing staff and a 40% drop in nurses looking after those with learning disabilities. That makes those services unsustainable.
Brexit is affecting the workforce, as it is every other aspect of life. There has been a 90% drop in European nurses registering to come and work in the UK, and a trebling of EU nurses who are leaving the UK register. That does not help to solve the problem, and those nurses cannot be totally replaced by UK staff in enough time. It does not matter that the Government come out with warm words if the Home Office’s actions make people feel insecure. Friends of ours who have been GPs for more than 20 years in Scotland applied for citizenship for their children. The eldest and youngest children were granted it; the middle child was refused. What are they now talking about? “Maybe we should go back to Germany where we’d be safe.”
From every angle, the Government are taking actions that are making staffing levels worse. The former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), used to go on about the lack of junior doctors and consultants as a cause of excess deaths among those admitted at weekends. Actually, the only staffing impact proven through research is on the ratio of registered nurses to patients—not healthcare assistants or others.
Dr Poulter
I am sure that most of us had great concerns about the previous Secretary of State’s use of statistics, but a mental health study was carried out and the highest morbidity rates were in the middle of the week, not at weekends, which rather disproved the assertions that he was making.
Dr Whitford
We pointed that out repeatedly at the time. It has been shown time and again that quality, well-trained, experienced nurses—not so much agency nurses or healthcare assistants—who know a ward are the bedrock of every single service in healthcare.
Brexit is having an impact. Even though in Scotland our Government have promised to pay settled status fees for all those working in public services, we have already lost, according to the British Medical Association survey, 14% of our doctors. England has lost almost 20%. We cannot reach a point where England has 50,000 nurse vacancies. That would be unsafe. The Government need to take action and, like the Scottish Government, put the bursary back, get rid of tuition fees, and make it sustainable for people to train to become nurses. If they do not do that, the sustainability and safety of the NHS in England will deteriorate further.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on securing this extremely important debate, and on the tour de force that she presented. She touched on many important issues. Time restrains me, so I will not be able to pick up on all the points that she made, nor on all the impressive contributions made by other Members, particularly those who have had frontline experience, and had practical examples that we need to look into further.
My hon. Friend talked about her local trust being a big employer in her constituency and beyond. Indeed, it employs some 8,000 people, but has a 10% vacancy rate—sadly, very much in line with the national average. She was right that covering the gaps in the rota is an expensive business. I was pleased to hear that so many initiatives were being undertaken by the trust, but the fact that there is still a 10% vacancy rate shows that something is broken with the system.
My hon. Friend highlighted the impact on patients that staff shortages can have regarding closures, and she was right to highlight the nursing workforce crisis and the whole range of specialisms that are at risk. She was also right to raise the uncertainty that Brexit brings to staff, and to highlight the lack of legal powers to require safe staffing levels, and the overall strategy that we need to get the correct staffing levels.
I was also delighted, as always, to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). She was right that agency spend sucks away vital resources and that recruitment challenges will never be solved unless we get the right framework. That is why we deeply regret the abolition of the nurse bursary, to which I will return.
We know that the NHS workforce is extraordinary. The NHS is one of the biggest employers in the world, and we must pay tribute, as we do every time, to the staff who work so tirelessly, day in and day out. We also have to recognise that there are simply not enough of them. Last month, the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation joined forces and warned that the staffing crisis in the NHS is deepening so fast that the service could be short of up to 350,000 staff by 2030. That warning is stark. Clearly there is an existential threat to the NHS if action is not taken to address the staffing crisis that we are now being told about.
According to official figures, there were more than 102,000 vacancies across the NHS at the end of September. That means that one in 11 posts in the NHS is currently vacant. The chair of NHS Improvement, Baroness Harding, recently acknowledged that
“the single biggest problem in the NHS at the moment is that we don’t have enough people wanting to work in it.”
However, the issues that we face run far deeper than merely how attractive the profession looks to applicants.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen said, we face a perfect storm of a retention crisis caused by factors including pay and conditions, ongoing uncertainty about Brexit, demographic challenges in many sectors of the workforce and the ongoing impact of the catastrophic decision to scrap bursaries for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. Although many of those issues are clear and long-standing, there is no credible overarching strategy to address any of them. As the House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS found, the lack of such a strategy
“represents the biggest internal threat to the sustainability of the NHS.”
We all eagerly await the publication of the NHS long-term plan, but I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation of precisely when that will happen. I was deeply concerned to hear Simon Stevens’s comments about how the plan will not definitively address staffing problems. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If so, when will we see the comprehensive strategy for the NHS workforce that we so desperately need?
As many hon. Members have said, the workforce crisis has been compounded by the abolition of undergraduate nurse bursaries. When it was announced that bursaries would be abolished, we were told that our many concerns were misguided and that the changes would lead to an additional 10,000 training places being provided. However, just as everyone but the Government predicted, the exact opposite has happened. As of September 2018, almost 1,800 fewer people are due to start university nursing courses in England, while the number of mature students has plummeted by 15%.
In our debate on nursing higher education on 21 November, the Minister said:
“We expect NHS England to clearly set out its commitment to the nursing workforce in the long-term plan, and ensure that there is a clear way for that plan to be implemented…The Government will be consulting on the detailed proposals on future funding for higher education that the RCN has put forward”.—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 372WH.]
Will he provide greater detail on that point and say when that consultation will take place?
The issues that hon. Members have discussed today are acute, systemic and entrenched, but they have been exacerbated by the Government’s short-term and flawed approach. Any long-term strategy for the NHS will fail if it does not address them. Staff and patients deserve more than a health service in a constant state of crisis. They deserve better than this Government.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) for securing this debate. As she and hon. Members who have contributed to other such debates will know, the issues she raises are very similar to those that we discussed on 21 November in the debate that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) has just referred to. However, it is welcome to have the opportunity to discuss them again, because such debates reflect the importance that we all place on the NHS workforce. The one thing that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on is that it is right to begin by reiterating our thanks to the NHS professional staff for their work treating patients day in, day out.
I also thank other hon. Members for their contributions. I note in particular the comment rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) that we need to upscale nurse degree apprenticeship routes. I will speak about that in more detail if I have time. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) spoke about the capital announcement made last week, which I was pleased to see come through. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made some points about mental health—may I offer him a meeting at the Department to discuss those matters directly, because today I want to concentrate on other matters? The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made a contribution based on her valuable experience.
I should say right at the outset, as I did in our debate two weeks ago, that the Government greatly value the staff who contribute to and support the NHS. We understand its importance and are committed to ensuring that it is supported and funded appropriately, which is clearly reflected in the extra £20.5 billion a year that the NHS will get by 2023-24.
As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston quoted me saying in our last debate, we expect NHS England to set out clearly its commitment to the workforce in the long-term plan. The plan will address how to open up the profession to more people from all backgrounds and ensure that they get the right support throughout their training. To answer his question: yes, when the long-term plan is published, he will see the workforce embedded in it and in our strategy. We also expect NHS England to deliver a clear implementation plan to guarantee the future of the workforce. The NHS employs a record number of staff—more than 1.2 million in 2018, which is more than at any other time in its 70-year history—with significant growth in newly qualified staff since 2010.
Let me repeat what I said two weeks ago:
“the Government, and I as the new Minister for Health, should never be complacent”.—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 372WH.]
We are not. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that nursing remains an attractive career so that the NHS can build on the record numbers of nurses on our wards. Actions already taken to boost the supply of nurses range from training more nurses and offering new routes into the profession to enhancing rewards and pay packages, and there are now 11,000 more nurses on our wards than in May 2010.
NHS England, NHS Improvement and Health Education England are working with trusts on a range of recruitment, retention and return to practice programmes to ensure that the required workforce is in place to deliver safe and effective services. We should note that NHS Improvement has had some real success with its retention programme. Retention seems to me one of the key issues for the Government to focus on, and that will be reflected in the long-term plan. NHS Improvement’s programme continues its direct work with trusts to support improvements in retention, with a focus on the nursing workforce and the mental health clinical workforce. So far, 35 trusts have been involved and the initial evidence is positive and encouraging, with more flexible working programmes and greater support for older workers. It is therefore right that that programme be expanded further to all remaining NHS trusts in England.
Maria Caulfield
Revalidation is a new system for nurses to retain their registration, but it is a very difficult and stressful process for nurses who may be part-time or part of a hospital bank. I was lucky because my NHS trust, the Royal Marsden, is extremely supportive to its bank workers, but will the Minister ensure that bank nurses are supported through the revalidation process to keep them registered?
Stephen Hammond
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I will ensure that that work is undertaken.
As I have said today and on previous occasions, the priority is to get more nurses on our wards. There are currently 52,000 nurses in training, and we have announced a policy change that will result in additional clinical placement funding to make 5,000 more training places available each year. My hon. Friend made the point that nursing bursaries were not always the panacea that everyone suggests; students on the loans system are at least 25% better off than under the previous system. However, we recognise that students incur additional costs as a result of attending clinical placements, so we have introduced a learning support fund with a child dependants allowance, reimbursement of travel costs and an exceptional hardship fund. When I spoke to nurses at Barts last week, I listened carefully to the points they made about the need for help with travel in particular, and I am looking carefully at that issue.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen raised the RCN proposal. Yesterday, as I had promised I would, I responded to the RCN in a formal letter to Dame Donna, and I look forward to meeting her to discuss her proposals in the near future—hopefully the very near future.
We are increasing the number of midwifery training places by more than 3,000 over the next four years. There continues to be strong demand for nursing places, with more applicants than places, but I am under no illusions, nor am I complacent. We need more people applying and we need to increase that route. A number of routes are open. HEE’s programme covers all fields of nursing; its RePAIR—reducing pre-registration attrition and improving retention—programme explores effective interventions to ensure that people are supported through their whole student journey from pre-enrolment to post-qualification.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen was right to mention the number of new routes into nursing. In particular, she will have noted the report published last week by the Select Committee on Education on the nurse degree apprenticeship. We are working with the Department for Education to carefully consider the Committee’s recommendations and I will respond in due course.
I want to turn to the story of doctors. In the NHS today, it is true that there are 18,200 more doctors in trusts and CCGs than there were in 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich raised the matter of the additional 5,000 doctors. This year, we have recruited 3,473 GP trainees, against the target of 3,250. That is an increase on last year, but we are determined to meet the commitment of 5,000. To ensure that that is possible, we have rolled out an extra 1,500 medical school places. By 2020, as he knows, five new medical schools will be open to deliver that expansion.
In the whole of this discussion, it is only right that I recognise that the Government value the professionals. It is key that we ensure that NHS staff are well remunerated. It is absolutely right that we have given NHS staff a well-deserved pay rise. All staff will receive a 3% pay rise by the end of 2018-19.
There is a lot more I might have said. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen raised a number of local issues, including ambulatory care. If she cares to write to me or to catch me, I would be happy to have a longer discussion with her. I thank her and all hon. Members for the points they have made in the debate. I also stress, as I have done today to staff at North Middlesex, and last week, that making sure that we have an NHS long-term plan that sets out a strategy for the NHS and ensures a sustainable supply of clinical workforce—doctors, workers and others—is key, and it is key to delivering our ambitions for the NHS. I thank the staff for all that they do.
Tracy Brabin
I thank colleagues from both sides of the House for their contributions, particularly those with frontline experience, and I thank the Minister for his measured response.
I have a couple of points. First, I am sure the Minister can feel the sense of urgency in this debate. Although I appreciate that long-term discussions are needed, we still do not have a date for when the long-term plan will be published or for the consultation on the Royal College of Nursing proposals. The Minister said it would be soon, but when will we have that?
Stephen Hammond
There is a commitment from the Government to produce the long-term plan before the end of the year, as the hon. Lady knows, and I have written to Dame Donna to request a meeting to discuss the RCN’s proposals.
Tracy Brabin
That is very reassuring.
We hear from across the House that mental health is receiving such little support. People are hanging by a thread. Nurses are saying to their organisations and their MPs, “I am worried for the health and safety of my patients. I’m doing too many shifts. I’m absolutely shattered. I can’t guarantee that I am going to be doing my job properly. They’re bringing in volunteers to support me on the ward.” It is an absolute crisis. While I understand that the wheels of government work very slowly, I hope that the Minister takes from this debate that Brexit has been a universal issue. We are losing staff members. I welcome the commitment to an extra 5,000 doctors and so on, but that is just plugging the gap of the staff who are draining away from our hospitals and frontline services.
Stephen Hammond
I absolutely recognise that Brexit is a pressure on the system, but we should also recognise that there are 4,367 more professionals working in the NHS from the EU than there were at the date of the referendum. It is important to put that on the record.
Tracy Brabin
If that is the case, the statistics are welcome, but in my constituency we are losing European members of staff. We cannot get away from the overall numbers—there are staffing shortages of 10%. In my constituency and in my trust they cannot recruit, because of various issues. I am grateful that the Government listened when I raised the question of tier 2 visas with the Prime Minister, when we wanted to bring over a paediatrician but could not because the visa took so long that he got another job. I welcome that when it comes to nurses, too, but we have to accept that there are things such as the bursary—
Written Statements
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Clinical Waste: Healthcare Environmental Services
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
I am today taking the opportunity to update the House about a company which provides clinical waste services to NHS Trusts.
This company—Healthcare Environmental Services (HES)—was subject to previous discussions in Parliament. On 9 October, the then Minister of State for Health, set out concerns that a number of waste storage and treatment sites were well over the permitted levels. This included waste collected from hospitals and other public services. Although the waste was stored securely, the Environment Agency was sufficiently concerned at the activities of this company that they took regulatory action, including launching a criminal investigation.
At the start of October, a number of trusts served by HES’ Normanton site, terminated their contracts, and arranged for Mitie to provide waste collection and incineration services instead.
Until last week, a number of other NHS trusts continued to receive services from HES. Those organisations, supported by NHSI and the Department of Health and Social Care, have been monitoring the situation.
However, HES has now failed to collect waste from 24 further trusts. NHSI has sought assurance from HES that it has not ceased trading and is capable of, and will continue to provide services. Such assurance has not been forthcoming. Contingency arrangements are in place for each of the affected trusts. An optional extension in the Mitie contract has been exercised, which will allow all affected trusts to access a replacement clinical waste collection service. This has been communicated to all Trusts and NHSI is working with affected trusts to mobilise and implement contingency plans.
These robust contingency measures mean there is no gap in service provision and no health risk to the public.
[HCWS1168]
Joint Inspection Team: Contingent Liability
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
I am today laying a departmental minute to advise that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has received approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury for a contingent liability associated with the joint inspection team (JIT) advisory role to local authorities.
The departmental minute describes the contingent liability that MHCLG will hold as a result of the JIT providing advice to the local authority. The local authority is still responsible for making decisions on enforcement.
The unquantifiable contingent liability will remain for the duration of the JIT operations, likely to be a period of 12 months, plus six years.
If the liability is called against JIT, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal Supply procedure.
[HCWS1169]
EU Transport Council
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I attended the only formal Transport Council under the Austrian presidency (the presidency) in Brussels on Monday 3 December.
The Council reached general approaches on the social and market pillars of the first tranche of the ‘Mobility Package’. The ‘social pillar’ is intended to establish a specific regulatory regime for the posting of workers in the road transport sector, and the ‘market pillar’ is intended to introduce new regulatory requirements for the operation of light commercial vehicles (vans); and to modify the ‘cabotage’ rules for vehicles operating in countries other than their country of establishment.
I welcomed the work that the presidency had done to achieve compromises on these challenging proposals, give the range of view from member states. During the discussion, I pressed for a further reduction in the proposed cabotage ‘cooling-off period’ (a period of time between cabotage operations) and for extending the period after which a vehicle should return to base to 10 weeks. After a lengthy debate a compromise was reached which included the reduction of the ‘cabotage’ cooling-off period to five days; clarifying when the posting of workers rules would apply to different haulage operations; removing altogether the requirement for the return of the vehicle; and retaining the original proposal to ban drivers from taking weekly rest in the cabin of their vehicles.
Following this, the Council reached a general approach on a proposal from the second tranche of the ‘Mobility package’, to amend the current directive on combined transport. The existing directive liberalises cabotage operations when part of a freight journey that comprises a rail or sea leg. The general approach included an amendment to these cabotage provisions in line with the earlier compromise on cabotage rules.
The Council reached a general approach on the proposed directive on road infrastructure safety management (RISM), from the third tranche of the ‘Mobility Package’.
The lunchtime debate consisted of Ministers discussing how to address airspace capacity constraints and was followed by presentations from Eurocontrol Director General, Eamonn Brennan and Transport Commissioner, Violeta Bulc.
Later, the Council reached two general approaches on the proposed directive on minimum level of training for seafarers and the proposed regulation establishing a European maritime single window. In addition, the Council adopted conclusions on inland waterway transport.
The Council reached a partial general approach on the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), endorsing the text presented by the presidency. The outstanding elements are those subject to horizontal negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework beyond 2020.
The Council noted the presidency’s progress reports on discontinuing seasonal changes of time, rail passenger rights, streamlining the trans-European transport network, clean and energy efficient vehicles and electronic freight transport information.
Finally, there were several information points from member states, the presidency and Commissioner Bulc under any other business. The presidency updated Council on the provisional agreements reached with the European Parliament on electronic road tolling and exchange of information, safeguarding competition in air transport and aviation wet-leasing. Commissioner Bulc noted good progress in on-going EU-ASEAN aviation negotiations that she hoped would conclude this year. In reply to a joint declaration from Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands on the social agenda in aviation, Commissioner Bulc noted that she would present a progress report on the social agenda identifying actions for potential completion. Ireland intervened to defend the value of new business models in aviation. Commissioner Bulc also drew attention to the 17 December conference on sustainable transport infrastructure charging and internalisation of transport externalities to be held in Brussels. The presidency provided an update on the EU’s space programme and the outcome of the informal meeting of Transport and Environment Ministers held in Graz on the 29-30 October 2018. Finally, Romania presented transport plans for its incoming presidency of the Council of the European Union.
[HCWS1167]
House of Lords
NHS: Specialist Services in Remote Areas
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what work is being carried out within the National Health Service to improve access to specialist services in areas which are remote from main hospitals.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, despite the temperature, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, NHS England, which is responsible for overseeing the commissioning of specialised services, is committed to considering the centralisation of such services, such as stroke provision, where it will raise clinical standards and improve outcomes. However, in doing so, NHS England is bound by its statutory duty to reduce health inequalities, including for people living in remote areas. A series of adjustments to funding allocations for clinical commissioning groups are designed to deliver that obligation.
Lord Beith
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. As the Minister indicated, many specialist treatments and emergency admissions now take place in major hospitals for patient safety and better outcomes, but what about the communities that are 50 miles or more from those hospitals? Some patients must travel for three or four hours at a time for follow-up consultations and treatment. Does the Minister recognise that, in remote areas, community hospitals need to provide a wider-than-usual range of services and treatments—such as the chemotherapy we have in Berwick—including follow-up consultations, examinations and radiography, using modern technology to link the patient to the clinician at the distant hospital?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that while it is important to specialise those services because they have been demonstrated to deliver better outcomes, we need to make sure that ancillary services can be delivered as close to the community as possible. In preparing for this Question, I was delighted to see that Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and the county council are building a new hospital in Berwick to provide that sort of care. That is welcome, but we also need to make sure that we protect community hospitals elsewhere in the country and that they can continue to deliver out-of-hospital care.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, there is one important way in which patients in remote parts of the country can access specialist care: telemedicine. It is quite easy to send X-ray pictures, scans and blood test results online, and even to interview patients. I send things via WhatsApp to my children almost every other day. It is entirely possible for me to do that on my iPhone; surely the NHS can do it too. I understand that Wales has managed to do it quite well. Is it possible for us to do the same in England?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Lord is right. Of course it is possible for us to do it in England; it is happening all over the country. Telemedicine offers fantastic opportunities, such as Skype-based GP consultations. Indeed, there is the example of Morecambe Bay’s remote clinician pilots in a variety of specialisms, such as gastroenterology and mental health care. Clearly, that is important. I point the noble Lord to the tech vision published by my relatively new Secretary of State this autumn, which points out the massive potential for digital health in reducing these kinds of inequalities.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
Within limits, a shifted out-patient model allows specialists to provide the same kind of consultations, investigations and procedures as in regular settings. Does the Minister not think a possible way forward would be to develop larger PCTs, as they would be more financially able and therefore have the capacity to provide that service in areas remote from the hospitals?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend makes an excellent point. The number of CCGs is reducing over time, as they tend to merge. Of course, they are increasingly coming together into integrated care systems, which cover a larger geographic community. Every one of those makes sure that people have not only community care but specialist care available.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, how many of the 3 million people who face the closure of their general practice in the coming year are in remote areas where they have a long way to travel to a hospital? What do the Government plan to do to ensure that some form of health service is available to those people? Telehealth can help, but people often need an examination.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right. There is an urgent need to recruit more GPs. We continue to be committed to that. I am sure she will be pleased to hear there are more GPs in training than there ever have been. We are also providing a £20,000 salary supplement to GPs who go and practise in rural areas.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
As the noble Baroness said, there are occasions when a patient needs to see a specialist, but travelling to access specialist services is especially difficult for those on low incomes. What is NHS England doing to advertise the healthcare travel costs scheme to patients in rural areas? Do the Government hold information on how many eligible patients are claiming?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
There are a number of schemes, as the noble Baroness points out. As well as the travel costs scheme, there is the low-income scheme. They are designed to help people with those kinds of costs. I do not have the specific numbers about take-up, but I shall certainly write to her with those.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
The Minister is correct to highlight the building of new hospitals, but these are no good if you cannot attract staff to them. Can he comment on the pilot scheme in west Cumbria which is training senior nurses to undertake the work of some junior doctors? How successful has that been, and how many students will take part in the second year of the course, which starts in January? What plans do the Government have to increase the number of staff right across the health service?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I shall look at the scheme the noble Lord mentions and would be delighted to follow up with him directly on that. We need more staff; we have more NHS staff than we did in 2010, but nevertheless we need more GPs and nurses. Of course, we also need to diversify the workforce in new ways. One of the most exciting innovations in the workforce sphere recently is the creation of several thousand nursing associate posts to support nurses and doctors in a range of settings.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of UCLPartners. The provision of centralised specialist services is predicated on the basis that there is an appropriate mechanism for integrated care across the tertiary, secondary and primary care institutions. Are Her Majesty’s Government satisfied that the regulatory framework to assess the quality of that care exists? If not, what mechanisms are being put in place to ensure regulation across integrated care pathways?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord makes an excellent point with great insight, as ever. We all want to move to an integrated care system which allows us to worry less about levels of care and think instead about patients and the care around them. We believe a lot can be done within the current regulatory framework but, when the Prime Minister asked the NHS to produce its long-term plan in return for the significant funding increase we are giving, she asked what legislation might be needed to complete that framework.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, as president of the Spinal Injuries Association, I ask the Minister if he is aware of the terrible state of spinal injury specialised hospitals, which do not have enough beds. Is he aware that the association and our fundraisers have privately employed two specialised nurses to help the hospitals which do not have expert help available?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am of course concerned by the point the noble Baroness makes. She has raised it with me privately. I absolutely applaud the work that the association has done but I will come back to her about our specific plans on how to make improvements.
International Development: Co-operation with the EU
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they propose to secure continued co-operation on international development programmes and funding in partnership with the European Union.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the political declaration sets out a vision for our future relationship with the EU. It provides for future UK-EU dialogue on development co-operation and for further discussions on how we might contribute to EU instruments in areas of mutual interest. Any further participation will be subject to the structure of EU instruments in the next multiannual financial framework post-2020, and to adequate UK oversight and participation for UK organisations.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, the UK delivers around £1.5 billion of its aid through EU institutions, which amounts to about 12% of the EU budget, and it is rated good or very good under DfID criteria. Given the challenging objective under the UN of ending absolute poverty by 2030 and leaving no one behind, and that the Government state that we share the same concerns, values and commitments to the sustainable developing goals as the EU, will he ensure that we continue to work closely with the EU in partnership? Will he give an absolute commitment that, whatever form Brexit takes, there will be no disruption to programmes, which could cause the poor to suffer or even die?
Lord Bates
I am very happy to reiterate the commitment on the important matter of humanitarian programmes in the unlikely event of a no deal. The more general point is covered in paragraph 108 of the political declaration, which talks about and articulates that very clear ambition. Of course, the EU itself is in a process of change in the instruments available. The EDF is coming to the end of its lifetime, and there is now discussion about a new neighbourhood instrument. We want to see what shape that takes before making any longer-term decisions, but the noble Lord is absolutely right to say that our interests and those of our European friends are very much aligned in this area.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that one of the biggest barriers to prosperity and development for developing countries is the European Union’s customs union, which results in their products being made less competitive and unable to reach our markets?
Lord Bates
One of the things that we can be incredibly proud of relating to the poorest countries in the world is the work done to give tariff-free, quota-free access to UK markets and to the EU for about 100 of the poorest countries in the world. We are committed to replicating that. In fact, we have already done so through the cross-border trade Act, which has already passed through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if the EU did not exist, this sort of Question would be a very good reason for inventing it? I give the examples of Burundi and Gabon, which each have only about one person competent to deal with a whole number of areas. Would it not be ridiculous if each European country came and told them that the criteria for auditing and testing were to be done 27 different ways? It is vital that this kind of co-ordination continues, preferably by the EU with British participation.
Lord Bates
Actually, for the vast majority of interventions of the type the noble Lord mentions we are talking about not EU but UN systems where we seek to have greater harmony. A lot of the things we seek to do with the sustainable development goals are a UN commitment. Our climate change ambitions are driven by a UN framework. There are lots of things that we work together on, but they tend to be more supranational, rather than in large bodies such as the European Union.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the fact is that the political declaration says very good words about the EDF and the need for Britain’s participation. Clearly, the Government have signed up to that. We are all a bit tired of the mantra that it is all subject to negotiation and these are all hypothetical questions. I ask the noble Lord to set out before the House now what the Government aspire to. How do they see participation and what do they see as the likely costs? Will we be able to control those costs? Because I think the public are being hoodwinked.
Lord Bates
We propose to leave the European Union on 29 March with a deal and that will then lead to the negotiation of a framework. During the implementation period that is proposed, we will continue to be party to the European Development Fund. When the new neighbourhood instrument is developed, we will evaluate it in light of our priorities and whether our European friends will allow a third country to be party to it. If so, we might continue to participate in it, but one thing is for sure: whatever happens in the course of Brexit, our overall commitment to the world’s poorest, as a leader in this area, will not be shaken at all.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, our EU membership has allowed the UK not only to magnify the impact of our aid but also to influence EU development policy to suit our own objectives. Therefore, potential impacts if the UK leaves the EU include a reduction in the global impact of the UK’s ODA and a reduction in value for money. Has DfID made any attempt to evaluate this, both in monetary terms and in terms of the damage done to our part in delivering the global SDGs?
Lord Bates
What we have made clear—I made it clear myself at the Foreign Affairs Council on development which I attended in Brussels two weeks ago—is that we believe that the future partnership needs to focus much more on three areas: peace and security; migration, and delivery of the sustainable development goals as part of that; and climate change. We believe that to focus on those and on the least developed countries will be the best way forward. We are making those arguments now because we will continue to be a strong member of the European Union until 29 March.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Given that one crucial element of a successful overseas development policy is to get the aid as rapidly as possible to the front line where it is needed, can the Minister tell us whether any study has been made of whether that is best accomplished via the European Union, with whatever bureaucracy may be involved in that, or by the money and the support going directly to the field—to the mine clearance or whatever it might be—directly from the British Government to the people that need it in the front line?
Lord Bates
Indeed. Most of these funding mechanisms are commissioning organisations, either European or through DfID; therefore funds do not actually get delivered by the European institutions. Rather, they commission organisations such as UNICEF or the ICRC to deliver that work on the ground. Most of it is done, essentially, through co-operation through the United Nations: that is what we are all working together for and, of course, that will be subject to no change whatever.
Buildings: Energy Performance
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stunell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they plan to take to improve the energy performance of buildings as a contribution towards reducing carbon emissions and achieving the United Kingdom’s climate change obligations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving the energy performance of buildings—with some speed, I hope. In the clean growth strategy, we set out our aspiration for domestic properties to achieve energy performance certificate band C by 2035, to reduce business energy use by 20% by 2030, and for the public sector to achieve a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020-21.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will know, of course, that the UK’s performance is falling well below the targets set in the clean development strategy and, indeed, in the figures he just gave. Buildings account for 30% of the UK’s energy emissions. Is it not time to start a major programme of retrofitting existing buildings, particularly homes, thereby saving people’s energy costs and meeting our carbon targets?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I accept the importance of buildings in achieving our carbon reduction targets. But I remind the noble Lord, as I have previously, that since 1990 we have reduced our emissions by some 43%; that is the fastest decarbonisation of any G20 country, which is something we can be proud of. As the noble Lord correctly states, it is important that we do this particularly for buildings. The clean growth strategy set out our aspirations for as many homes as possible to be upgraded to an energy performance certificate of band C by 2035, and we will continue to pursue that.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that at night many office blocks have the lights blazing all the time? I was in Canary Wharf recently and all the lights were on late at night. Could the Government not take some action on that immediately?
Lord Henley
My Lords, one would hope that the owners of those buildings would have the incentive of the cost of lighting those buildings. But the noble Lord ought to be aware that light does not necessarily always consume that much energy, particularly if the owners have switched to LED lights and other forms of lighting that can reduce their carbon footprint. What the noble Lord sees is not necessarily what is happening in terms of energy consumption.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that one of the simplest forms of retrofit to improve the energy performance of existing homes is loft insulation, yet the Committee on Climate Change, in its 2018 report, notes that loft insulation installation rates are now at their lowest for 10 years. The committee also sets a target for the Government as part of the trajectory to 2050, and the legally binding commitment we have made, of installing loft insulation in the remaining 2.5 million homes where it can be installed simply and effectively, by 2022. Does he also note, and will he comment on the fact, that the current rate of installation will mean that this target is not met until at least 2080?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that loft insulation is one of the best ways for any householder to reduce the amount of energy they use and have a warmer house. One would hope that there are two motivators here. One, obviously, is price, which should encourage people to buy their insulation and install it. We also offer advice through the Simple Energy Advice service—a new digital approach offering tailored advice to home owners—which has been available online and by telephone since the spring to encourage people to look at ways of insulating their homes.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, why is it not mandatory for all new buildings to be fitted with energy-saving devices such as solar or photovoltaics?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I think the owners of most new buildings go to a great deal of trouble to make sure that they are properly insulated. They have to be insulated up to a certain level. I will write to my noble friend in greater detail. Whether they want to go further and whether that should be mandatory is another question.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will agree that improving the energy efficiency of buildings plays a crucial role in tackling fuel poverty and helping to bring down bills for the most vulnerable. According to the Committee on Climate Change, the Government are “off-track” to meet their fourth and fifth carbon budgets. Can the Minister set out to the House what steps, if any, his Government are taking to get back on track?
Lord Henley
My Lords, my understanding is that we have met our first carbon budget. We are on track to meet our second and third. I will take advice on where we are on the fourth, and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, obviously I care about all the environmental aspects of these issues, but measures such as home insulation also create huge amounts of business for small and medium businesses, and thousands of skilled jobs. Why are they not at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we are all fully aware that the noble Baroness cares very strongly about the environmental aspects and I assure her that they are at the heart of our industrial strategy. We want to see people take the business opportunities of selling insulation and individuals then taking the opportunity to insulate their home.
Mobile Networks: Resilience
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to improve the resilience of United Kingdom mobile networks following the outage of O2’s services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I ought to declare a very small interest as a customer of O2 and, therefore, someone who is in line for a reimbursement of two days-worth of my monthly subscription.
There is a regular dialogue on interests of concern to both industry and Government. DCMS works closely with the telecoms sector on resilience issues via the Electronic Communications Resilience and Response Group, which leads on resilience activity and emergency response. The industry has a good track record of enhancing resilience, and we will be working closely with O2 and the wider sector to understand the causes of this incident and what lessons can be learned.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. He will be aware that O2 is not the only recent example of lack of systems resilience. Work undertaken by the Government in preparation for a possible hard Brexit has revealed that a very large proportion of British business is driving extremely close to the edge of chaos in terms of how little it would take to seriously disrupt their businesses and our lives. Will he encourage his colleagues to encourage businesses, once Brexit is past us, to maintain the provisions they are now making against possible difficulties, in the cause of our running a more resilient society than we apparently have been doing?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I assure my noble friend that my department, which is responsible for telecoms, will continue to work with the Electronic Communications Resilience and Response Group. By coincidence, there is a meeting of that group next week, from which we will find out exactly what happened with the O2 outage and the emergency response, which worked well. I can assure my noble friend that we will continue with that, whatever happens with Brexit.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, any measures that improve the resilience of mobile connectivity for those that already have it will be welcome but sadly, many people, particularly in rural areas, have no or poor mobile connectivity. What steps are the Government taking to help those people? In particular, do they intend to place on the winner of the auction of the 700 megahertz spectrum a rural coverage obligation or, better still, a RuralFirst obligation?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
As the noble Lord knows, the Government have made huge progress in extending the availability of both broadband and mobile connectivity. The Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review showed the way to increasing the amount of fibre optic cable across the country, which is currently behind the European average, and we now plan to do that. One of its features is the “outside in” policy, which will enable rural areas to have priority in the rolling out of fibre-optic cable.
Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)
My Lords, if I had come from abroad and was using a foreign mobile phone, the O2 outage would not have affected me because my phone would have switched to a different network. Could we not arrange that, if such a thing happened again, our domestic phones would also switch to a different network?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am not sure my noble friend is entirely correct. The problem involved Ericsson, a third-party software supplier to O2, and had worldwide effects, so there is no guarantee that his foreign phone would have worked. I hasten to add that that was only for data, not voice.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Does this whole episode not highlight the need to completely reconfigure the universal service obligation, which is failing so badly, to include mobile telephony—it does not at present—and to ensure the whole system focuses more on infrastructure capacity, reliability and service?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, the universal service directive, which is the basis for the universal service obligation, only includes fixed-line service. Therefore, it would be impossible under European law to include mobile.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, digital connectivity, whether through broadband or mobile, is a new utility and those who do not have it are socially and financially excluded. Can my noble friend tell me when 100% of homes in this country will have such connectivity?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, alluded to, by 2020 the universal service obligation will give every household in this country a legal right to be connected at a speed of not less than 10 megabits a second.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister and his colleagues consider the resilience of the mobile phone network—I refer to my interests in the register on this matter—could he ensure that resilience for all providers is covered in respect of electricity power outages and their impact on mobile phone aerials? Most of those have a battery life of only two hours if the electric power is off.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Yes, power outages, pandemics and flood are some of the issues that the ECRRG, the group which I mentioned, has considered. It has improved the organisation for that in recent months.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Is the Minister able to provide assurance that first responders and emergency services have a back-up system across all parts of the United Kingdom in the event of any of the systems going through an outage period?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am not able to give that assurance as I do not know what bases the emergency services use. If, for example, they were entirely dependent on O2 they would not have back-up. I am not aware whether that is the case but I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on that subject.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Civil Contingencies Secretariat used to produce a pamphlet which covered all the resilience issues, including communications, power and pandemics. Now that is included as part of the national risk register, so that when you look it up on the web you can draw down things. Is there any plan to produce that very useful booklet again, which went to every single household and gave advice on how to confront these various resilience issues?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am not sure of the answer to that. Critical national infrastructure is the responsibility of the Cabinet Office and I will certainly ask those there and write to the noble Lord.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question which was given by my honourable friend Robin Walker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department for Exiting the European Union. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I recognise this was a question which was the subject of much discussion and some speculation yesterday. I hope to be able to put honourable Members’ concerns at ease.
Put simply, in keeping with the clear intention of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government will ensure that the question of whether to accept an agreement is brought back to this House before 21 January. If Parliament accepts that deal, we will introduce the EU withdrawal agreement Bill to implement the withdrawal agreement in domestic legislation. If Parliament chooses to reject the deal, the Government will be required to make a Statement on their proposed next steps and table a Motion in neutral terms on that Statement. Following the passage of the amendment to the Business of the House Motion last week, that Motion will be amendable. So it is our clear intention that this House will consider this matter before 21 January and have the opportunity to decide on the deal.
But let me also say this clearly: in the unlikely and highly undesirable circumstances that as of 21 January there is no deal before the House, the Government would bring a Statement to the House and arrange for a debate, as specified by the law. I am confident that we will have a deal the House can support, but I hope the Statement puts to rest the concerns of honourable Members about the Government’s commitment to meet the spirit, as well as the letter, of the withdrawal Act and to respect the will of the House”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for that Answer which clears up the apparent lack of clarity from the Prime Minister yesterday on the legal force of the 21 January deadline and the lack of certainty from the leader of the House of Commons yesterday on the ongoing force of Dominic Grieve’s amendment. However, six weeks is still a very long time for the errand of collecting mere assurances, not least when the Prime Minister openly contemplates,
“the risk of an accidental no deal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/18; col. 25.]
The clearest thing of all is that yesterday’s House of Commons vote was pulled in pure, blind panic with little regard for the economic and constitutional consequences for our country.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I do not accept the allusion to uncertainty that the noble Baroness referred to. We are following a discernible course of action in order to implement a demanding issue in accordance with the will of the people of the United Kingdom. As regards the idea that it will be six weeks, no time limit has been fixed for the period in which this matter will be the subject of further assurance and in which it will be brought back to Parliament. What we have said is that 21 January is a date beyond which we will not go.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, however well intentioned, the Answer just repeated simply ignores the legal problems. Pulling yesterday’s vote has left us mired in a legislative no man’s land from which the withdrawal Act offers us no escape. Section 13(4) does not apply because the House of Commons did not decide not to pass the Government’s resolution—it decided nothing—so there is no requirement under that subsection for the Government to set out their proposals within 21 days. Subsections (8) and (11) do not apply because they depend on an absence of an agreement in principle, but there is such an agreement, even though not one approved by the Commons. So there is no obligation on the Government under the Act to set out their proposals.
It follows that as matters stand, the country is in a state of limbo. There is no legislative significance to 21 January and the Government are legally unconstrained by time limits, even though the time until March is running out. If the Government will not give us a firm timetable, so long as the text of the withdrawal agreement remains in place but unapproved, the only solution may be for the House of Commons to find a way to force a vote on the Government’s resolution put to it last Tuesday and reject it, so activating the obligation for the Government to make a Statement within 21 days under subsection (4). Does the noble and learned Lord agree with this analysis?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord upon his exercise in statutory interpretation, which would undoubtedly attract an A-. The position at present is that in keeping with the spirit of the Act the Government will ensure that the matter is brought back to the Commons before 21 January.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, we are all obliged to the Minister for his explanation. Will he now confirm that what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has been saying again and again has now been confirmed by the European Court of Justice, that we can unilaterally agree to withdraw our Article 50 withdrawal and remain part of the European Union now that we know the consequences of leaving? Is that not something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has said on a number of occasions would be the sensible thing for Parliament to do and get on with running this country?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said many things with regard to Article 50, but the Court of Justice of the European Union has given its ruling on its interpretation of Article 50, and it speaks for itself.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord told the House that the Government will act within the spirit of the legislation and propose a vote in the House of Commons by 21 January, although that is rather late. How much credence can be placed in the Government acting in the spirit of something when yesterday morning, Ministers were fanning out around the country promising that the House of Commons would be voting today? Is this not a Government who break their promises and break the undertakings they have given?
Lord Keen of Elie
No, my Lords, this is a Government who act, and will continue to act, in the public interest.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the House was told some months ago that there was a substantial body of legislation following the withdrawal Act to be carried through before 29 March, including a very substantial number of statutory instruments. The time between 21 January and 29 March is extremely short. Will the Government Front Bench provide a Statement as soon as possible on what legislation will be required to implement any agreement by 29 March, what can be left until later and how the House might manage that between the last week in January and the final week of March?
Lord Keen of Elie
It will of course be for the Government to determine what legislation is brought forward and when. The Government remain confident that there is sufficient time to bring forward the necessary legislation for our exit from the European Union as at 29 March of next year.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that governance in this country has become an absolute laughing stock, both domestically and internationally? Is it not right that we call a people’s vote to get us out of this mess and give people the opportunity to decide to remain within the European Union?
Lord Keen of Elie
I gently remind the noble Lord that what he refers to as the people’s vote is actually a second referendum; that the first referendum had on the paper the question of whether or not we remain in the European Union; and that that question has been answered.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
Now that the Luxembourg court has agreed with what I have been saying for many months—that we can in fact resile from clauses 2 to 5 of Article 50—does that not present us with an opportunity? Can we not now go through the Council of Ministers to offer European citizens continuing mutual residence and free trade under the WTO, all of which is much more to the advantage of the people of Europe than it is to ours? When that is agreed, we can discuss with Brussels how much money we give them, if any.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this Government have no intention to withdraw the Article 50 notice, which has been tendered in accordance with the relevant treaties.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Prime Minister has now realised that her deal will not stand up, are the Government looking at a Plan B? Are they looking at the Norway option or other options to get us out of the mess that they have got us into?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the matter of the present agreement is still the subject of ongoing discussion with members of the EU 27 and with the institutions of the European Union. Once those discussions are completed, of course the agreement will be brought back to this Parliament.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as the meaningful vote is not being held today and may well be held on, say, 20 January, will there be another 21 days after that for the Government to respond?
Lord Keen of Elie
In the event that the House of Commons resolves not to approve the withdrawal agreement, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13, it will be a requirement that a Minister of the Crown will, within a period of 21 days, make a Statement to the House with regard to our intentions.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that meanwhile there is real urgency about what happens next and that the 21 January strategy should in a sense fade into the background because immediate information and certainty is necessary? I am constantly approached by people in business, the professions, the health service and universities about the uncertainty prevailing in their planning for the future. We are going into the new year with no further indication of certainty on which they can plan.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, certainty can be embraced in due course by proving the withdrawal agreement that has been laid before Parliament.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 11th December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 147(a) Amendment for Third Reading (PDF) - (5 Dec 2018)
Lord O’Shaughnessy
“(2A) In determining whether either of paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-paragraph (2) applies, the responsible body must consider the views of any relevant person about the wishes of the cared-for person that are brought to the responsible body’s attention.(2B) In sub-paragraph (2A) “relevant person” means a person engaged in caring for the cared-for person or a person interested in the cared-for person’s welfare.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, throughout the progress of this Bill both the Government and noble Lords have been keen to improve the protections and safeguards contained within the reformed deprivation of liberty safeguards system so that the welfare of the cared-for person is always of paramount importance. It is that principle which lies behind the amendment I have laid for debate today.
The amendment makes it clear that any relevant person who identifies that a cared-for person is objecting to arrangements is empowered to raise the matter with the responsible body and can trigger a review by an independent AMCP. Furthermore, the amendment specifies that the responsible body must consider the views of anyone engaged in caring for the person or a person who is interested in their welfare. Importantly, this amendment is explicit that staff of all kinds can raise concerns, as well as others with an interest in the person’s welfare, and it will support staff and others, such as families or carers, in their ability to do so. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for highlighting this very important issue on Report, and for working with and meeting me to agree a way forward.
The amendment that the Government are proposing makes it easier for inadequacies in care provision to be addressed more swiftly. Recent issues with Gosport, Winterbourne View, Mendip House and, sadly, many other cases have highlighted how important it is that family, friends and staff feel empowered to raise concerns, and for action to be taken as a result. The amendment means that if a member of staff or a family member thinks that the person is objecting and that that is not being properly considered, they can raise it with the responsible body. That body, which of course is legally responsible for authorising a deprivation of liberty, will be able to use that to judge whether an AMCP should therefore complete a pre-authorisation review. Being able to raise such concerns directly with the responsible body is particularly important as it means that staff and others can raise concerns without having to go through those who may be directly involved in the care or treatment of the person. That will enable people to feel supported and more confident to take such action.
The Bill already requires that an AMCP completes the pre-authorisation review if it is reasonable to believe that the cared-for person does not want to reside or receive care or treatment at a place. However, I agreed with noble Lords on Report that we should have something in the Bill which is explicit about the sorts of things the responsible body must consider when making this determination so that staff and families feel supported in speaking up. That is what this amendment achieves. I should add that the Government are committed to ensuring that the measure created by the amendment forms part of the necessary training and support ahead of the implementation of the new system.
Noble Lords will note that this amendment relates to the pre-authorisation review process. We understand that it will also be necessary to make sure that the ability to trigger an AMCP review is in place as part of the ongoing review process. Due to time constraints, we have not been able to table an amendment on this subject now, but I commit that the Government will return to this issue at the Commons stages of the Bill.
I again thank noble Lords for raising this issue and for working with the Government to produce this amendment. I hope the amendment satisfies the demands that noble Lords rightly made to give family and staff a higher profile in raising issues and to include that in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I hope the House will indulge me for one or two minutes. I welcome the amendment and have no objections to it at all. However, I note that the Government have not come forward with amendments in relation to three other issues. The first is the risk to others and the interface with the mental health review. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an assurance that the Government will not seek in the Commons to clarify the interface between this legislation and the mental health review. There is talk of using “objection” as the key criterion, but in my view we also need to consider the risk to others as a possible principle to be considered. Can we have an assurance that the Government will not seek to resolve this issue during the progress of this Bill in the Commons?
The second issue concerns independent hospitals, which we have debated. Although I certainly do not wish to reopen that debate, can the Minister give us an assurance that work will be done in preparation for the Commons stages on the very serious situation in which many people find themselves in independent hospitals? These hospitals are often remote and—if I may say so—not well run. People are incredibly vulnerable in them, often far more so than in homes. An assurance that that will be addressed in the Commons stages would be helpful.
The third issue regards domestic situations. Whatever the Government decide to do in the Commons, can they bear in mind the importance of trying to limit the levels of bureaucracy and, ideally, of not continuing to use the Court of Protection? Again, many very vulnerable carers caring for very vulnerable people do not have the resources to deal with a lot more bureaucracy—they already have a hell of a lot to deal with. Can the Minister respond on that point?
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I share my noble friend’s concerns about the impact and relevance of Sir Simon Wessely’s review of the Mental Health Act. It is particularly concerning that the Bill will now proceed to the other place without careful consideration in your Lordships’ House of how it will interface with Sir Simon’s recommendations, which were published in his review only last week. His proposed new dividing line, which identifies whether the Mental Health Act or the Mental Capacity Act should be used in a given situation, will be based on whether P objects or, in the case of people with learning disabilities, whether P’s behaviour puts others at risk. The Mental Capacity Act, as it will be in its currently amended form, has a direct bearing on any changes to the Mental Health Act, and vice versa.
Given this new dividing line, does the Minister expect more or fewer people with a learning disability to move across from the Mental Health Act to the new LPS system? What research is the department doing to explore this, and what impact will the change have on the number of people with learning disabilities and autism detained in assessment and treatment units? Is there a risk that the gains made by the transforming care programme will be reversed? Related to this, and given the uncertainties, will the Government commit to extending the transforming care programme, which is otherwise due to close later this year?
My final point is that the Wessely review specifically recommends that the periods between reviews of renewal decisions should be reduced in the Mental Health Act. This Bill as it stands would allow a responsible body to detain a person for up to three years without renewal review. Surely the Government will want to take this issue equally seriously with respect to the Mental Capacity Act.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. It is well thought through and I am glad that the Government have brought it forward. However, like my noble friends Lady Hollins and Lady Meacher, I have some very serious doubts about the continuance of this Bill as it goes to the Commons. We have already raised our anxieties about how it fits in with the Wessely review, and we have come to the end of our deliberations—when the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, normally congratulate each other on the process that we have gone through—but in fact we are leaving this Bill with the very same problems with which it came to this House.
The Bill came before Parliament because of the totally unviable nature of the current legislation. However, we do not have a statutory definition of deprivation of liberty for the purposes of this legislation and we now intend, as the Bill goes to the Commons, still to intrude on people living in their own homes. We are talking about a Bill that affects about 1 million people. It is currently projected to cost £2 billion a year but, with our amendments that introduce some improvements, it will cost considerably more.
Will the Commons really tackle the key issues? We have not seen the wood for the trees—that is the problem. We have tackled some really important minor issues but not the major issues that will make the legislation implementable in the care system. Can the Minister tell us what will happen next?
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment and declare my interests as set out in the register.
I too would like to talk about the application to adults with learning disabilities, autism or dementia who also have a mental health diagnosis, and I would also like to talk about what other noble Lords have mentioned—the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act. As the Minister will have seen, Sir Simon’s review redraws the dividing line between when a person should be detained under the Mental Health Act and when they might fall under the Mental Capacity Act.
Given that the proposed new dividing line is “objection” —in other words, those not objecting fall under the Mental Capacity Act—the role of the advocate in articulating the wishes of the individual becomes paramount in ensuring that the individual is treated under the appropriate legislation. With that in mind, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Does he agree that advocates will need to receive sufficient support and training to understand this new dividing line, as and when it comes into being? Can he also clarify who will be responsible for ensuring that the training takes place and from whose budget the funding for it will come?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for adopting the principle of the amendment that we put forward on Report and for recognising its importance. I am glad to see that this will be in pre-authorisation reviews and to hear the assurances that it will act as a trigger for all types of reviews and will be put into the Bill when it goes to the other place.
I also recognise that the Minister has touched on staff induction, which will need to include training on liberty protection safeguards and cover when the review should trigger further action. However, I seek a categoric assurance from the Minister that the code of practice will state that staff will have the full protection of whistleblower legislation whenever they raise a concern, even if, for whatever reason, it does not proceed to initiating a review. I was grateful that during our meetings the Minister openly discussed the possibility of vexatious triggers, although I estimate that these would be very few and that triggers for reviews would involve legitimate concerns about a person’s welfare.
I also seek assurance that in its inspections the Care Quality Commission will be asked specifically to check that all staff know that they can request a review to be triggered and that they know that they will be protected. In addition, the responsible body, whenever asked to undertake a review, will need to keep a register of all such requests so that an emerging pattern of several requests coming from an institution will trigger a more major review into the type of care provided for everyone there.
One of the difficulties I anticipate arising at the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act is over the principle of objection. Among this cohort of people, objection may not be active; it may be passive. Sitting quietly, being withdrawn and being unhappy should be enough objection for people to consider whether the person should have been placed somewhere different or whether the conditions of their liberty protection safeguards should be altered. I have the impression that the type of objection envisaged in the Mental Health Act review was much more active than this type of passive objection, which could be interpreted as consent.
The other worrying aspect relating to this Bill and to the entire mental health review is the acute shortage of accommodation for people, both in the short and long terms. There is a shortage of suitable accommodation for people in crisis and of long-term accommodation that can meet people’s needs. Some are therefore accommodated in places not really adequate for their needs, but there seems to be no other option.
I repeat my gratitude to the Minister for having listened and brought forward this government amendment, and for all the other amendments that have gone into the Bill and brought about substantive changes. I look forward to hearing those reassurances in his response.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I concur with what other noble Lords have said and ask the Government to take one more look at the remaining conflict of interest relating to independent hospitals. It appears they will be able to employ their own AMCPs and, as the responsible body, authorise the deprivation of liberty of people in the hospital. This could pose a huge conflict of interest. The team has taken a great deal of trouble to remove this in the care home setting, and it seems it would be relatively straightforward to do so for independent hospitals. I fully support the amendments outlined today.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment and for having taken the time and effort to discuss the thinking of the department with many of us. I pay tribute to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. They were rookies—this was their first ever Bill—and they have done a tremendous job, not least because it is a fairly open secret that many of us think this is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever brought before this House. I seriously mean that; we have said it several times. Together, they have enabled all of us in this House to play a very responsible role in turning some very bad legislation into legislation that is still in many regards highly deficient, but not as bad as it was.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, inevitably we failed to see the wood for the trees. We were so busy dealing with big defects in what was presented to us that we did not really get the chance to stand back and look at what would be an efficient overall system. It is for people in the House of Commons to look at what remains to be done to improve the Bill as it comes to them.
Part of it is that we spent so much time looking at the role of care home managers, we did not get around to thinking about how AMCPs, IMCAs and appointed persons could work together more efficiently to ensure that the most vulnerable get the most attention. It is unfortunate that Sir Simon Wessely’s review came to us only last week, with, at its very heart, the important issue of objection, the implications of which we should have been able to discuss in this Bill. I am sure we will need to return to that.
On this amendment, I thank the Minister for widening the triggers to include the involvement of an AMCP. But I want to flag up to those who will look at this in future the change in the role of care home managers and the role they will continue to play in renewing deprivations of liberty for up to three years, which is a big concern.
I also want to return to an issue that has been raised before: why, in this Bill, do we continue to deploy the best interest argument when it comes to ensuring that somebody has an IMCA? Several times we have asked to see the evidence base for creating that hurdle to access an IMCA, and the Government have yet again not given us any. A lot of people, particularly older women with dementia, will not get an IMCA because they will not be deemed to be objecting.
Perhaps the Bill’s biggest deficiency, and one we have not discussed much, is that practically nothing is in regulation; large swathes of it will be left to a code of practice. If one goes back to the Mental Capacity Act, however, one finds regulations that relate primarily to those who will be enacting this legislation. Regulatory conditions are applied to those who can be an AMCP, and to what their training has to be, and to those who can act as an IMCA, and to their ongoing duties to maintain contact when people move and to step in when the appropriate person, for some reason or another, ceases to fulfil the obligations it was initially assumed they would.
I say to those who will look at this in the House of Commons: the Government must be required, apart from anything else, to come forward with a great deal more detail than we have been able to elicit from them. With that, I welcome what is before us today.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming this amendment, which we will of course support. It is a little disappointing that we have not made all the progress that we wished around the AMCP. We are half way there with the pre-assessment regime in this amendment and have a commitment that the other part will be undertaken in the Commons. As the Minister and other noble Lords will be aware, the Bill has to end its passage here anyway, so we will be able to see whether those commitments have been fulfilled to ensure that the safeguards are in place.
As we discussed on Report, and in the helpful meeting with the Bill team, the amendments we were seeking—to ensure that the care home manager is not responsible for decisions about independent consultation —have been responded to. However, I am not sure we are quite there yet.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, pointed out, a question remains about independent hospitals employing their own AMCPs and whether that is a conflict of interest that needs to be dealt with by the Bill. As other noble Lords have said, we need to ensure that if the person who expresses concern is a member of staff, they will be protected under the whistleblowing regime. I accept that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, that would not necessarily be included in the Bill, but it simply has to be there, otherwise this will not work.
The noble Baroness said that we are going to congratulate each other, but I shall do that next.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am grateful to noble Lords for their acceptance of the amendment. It was tabled as a result of noble Lords’ input and their best endeavours to resolve the situation. It goes part of the way there, as we have discussed, and the Government are committed to solving it as the Bill moves to its Commons stages. There were specific questions on the amendment that I want to deal with. There were subsequent issues but I will deal with the Mental Health Act issues now. I shall leave the other issues until my closing speech because they anticipate what I will say when we come to the final part of the Bill’s passage.
On the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about the code of practice and ensuring that protection is set out in whistleblowing legislation. We will make sure that we do that. As she will know, and as I have discussed before in the House, the Government are committed to doing more on that in the follow-up to the Gosport scandal. That is important. She also made excellent suggestions about the role of the CQC, its inspection framework and making sure that those provisions are well understood, and about helping to train responsible bodies to look for patterns. That is excellent advice, which we shall make sure is reflected in both the code of conduct and the regulatory regime. I think those were the only questions on the amendment.
Perhaps I may mention the Mental Health Act review before I finish on the amendment and move on. Clearly, it is an important piece of work. There are 152 recommendations and it is right that we take time to consider the right way to respond to them. The Government have already taken on board two of those recommendations, but there are many more to consider. One of the questions in front of us, which we have talked about to some degree during the stages of the Bill—and which will clearly come to the fore in the Commons stages—is: what is the right vehicle to deal with the interface between the suggestions that Simon Wessely has made?
There is a difference of opinion in this House about how that should be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others have a contrary view, but we need to solve the problem in front of us—which is that the deprivation of liberty safeguards system is not working—and then, when we have decided what the right thing to do is, to improve the Mental Health Act and its interface with the Mental Capacity Act at that point. It would be precipitous to try to do that now, before we have had an opportunity to consider it properly. In saying that, I do not mean it is not important—quite the opposite. It is so important to get it right that rushing through it could store up problems of a kind that we do not want.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked about advocates, their training for the new dividing lines and various other questions. We will have to work through these matters as we consider the right way forward in the Bill. I disagree with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that we should reconsider whether the Bill goes ahead because it is not intended to, and does not, reflect these issues. The Bill needs to go ahead. We know that it will not solve all the problems before us and we will probably need to act again. However, noble Lords will know that it is not always straightforward to get legislative time—let alone at the moment—and we need to take advantage of the opportunity that we have to do something good now and seek to do further good when the opportunity presents itself.
I will reserve my other reflections until my closing speech, when I will attempt to deal with them. Otherwise, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to and support for this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, I will use the opportunity of my closing speech to offer my sincere thanks to all those in the House who have contributed to the passage of this Bill. I hope that I will not miss out any names from this list, but I want to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton, Lady Jolly, Lady Tyler, Lady Barker, Lady Wheeler, Lady Finlay, Lady Hollins, Lady Murphy, Lady Watkins and Lady Meacher, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Touhig, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for their contributions. I also thank my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott for her steadfast support. In her first time at the Dispatch Box she was stupendous and set a high bar for future performances. Lastly, I thank my noble friend Lady Barran, who gave us an excellent maiden speech during the passage of the Bill, and congratulate her on her promotion to the Whips’ Office.
I believe that, by working together constructively over the past six months, we have much improved the Bill. In doing so, we have provided a system that will protect much better the 2 million people in our society who have impaired capacity. As noble Lords have brought to life during the passage of the Bill, that is something of which many of us have personal experience. I think that there is broad agreement that the current system does not work and needs to be changed, to put the cared-for person at the centre of it. I also believe that during the passage of the Bill through this House, and in response to suggestions and ideas from noble Lords, we have made some significant improvements. Once again I beg to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. We have not made just superficial changes: rather, some really important changes have been made.
The Bill will now apply to 16 and 17 year-olds as well as those aged over 18. We have carefully designed a role for care homes while eliminating conflicts of interest and being clearer about their role in the system. We have been explicit that the person completing assessments must have appropriate skills and knowledge, and a statement to the responsible body must be written. The Bill no longer contains the outmoded and unwanted references to “unsound mind” and we have also strengthened the provisions around appointing IMCAs, including a presumption that they now will be appointed. I hope that in practice that deals with the concern just expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. We have also made sure that the cared-for person must be consulted so that their voice is heard in every case, and today we have amended the Bill to enable families and staff whistleblowers to raise concerns much sooner and for those concerns to be acted on.
I should also say that the House has made its own opinion known in defeating the Government on the issue of specifying that arrangements should be necessary and proportionate in order to prevent harm to self, and I can confirm that the Government will not seek to change this position in the Commons. The Government will also carefully consider the amendment passed by noble Lords on rights of information being provided to the person.
The Bill will now move forward to the Commons and I can give some reassurance about several of the issues that noble Lords raised in the last debate. As I say, we have committed to make sure that the amendment passed today will be reflected in the sense of being able to raise concerns at the review stage. We will also provide clarification about referrals to AMCPs, including independent hospitals. That was a commitment I gave on Report and I am very happy to repeat it. It will look not only at independent hospitals but at whether there are other circumstances, and what they ought to be, when a referral to an AMCP ought to be direct.
I should also say a word in response to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hollins, about the definition of deprivation of liberty. Again, I can confirm that this is something we intend to deal with in the Commons. I hope the noble Baronesses will be reassured on that. We have achieved a lot, and even if there is more that we wanted to achieve, the contributions of noble Lords have directly influenced the changes that we intend to make in the Commons. So, although it is for those in the other place to pass the amendments, noble Lords should be congratulated on their role in designing them. I hope that they will get support when we move them in the other place.
A further question was asked about the flexibility of reviews by, I think, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Barker. We will need to consider that. It is worth pointing out that it is a flexibility, not a timeframe, and that it is meant to allow for continuity in situations where the circumstances of the person are not changing. Clearly, safeguards in the system will allow for much quicker reviews if there is a reason for them. Indeed, the amendment we passed today is another way in which such a review could be triggered. So I will certainly take on board the noble Baronesses’ points about flexibility, but I think that there are enough safeguards in the system.
I hope that I have answered all noble Lords’ questions. I am sure that the conversation will continue. There is much work still to do. I thank the hard-working policy team for their engagement in this process, as well as all the stakeholders who have contributed, given us their thoughts, challenged us at times and as a consequence made this legislation better.
I want to end with some reflection. We know that these are difficult and divisive times in our country and in Parliament, but we have shown through the passage of the Bill that we can work together to improve legislation, reform public services and protect vulnerable people. We should all bear that in mind as we move through the days and weeks ahead. With that, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and I beg to move.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House but I have one or two important things to say. First, the House owes a debt of gratitude to the ministerial team for their work in getting us to this point. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, should take a great deal of the credit for enabling all the things he listed as achievements of the House, going forward. Obviously, the Bill leaves us in a much better state than when it arrived.
There was one contribution by a Member of your Lordships’ House that we have not acknowledged but should: that of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. She has not been able to take part in many of our debates but she made an important contribution when she stood up and said that the Bournewood gap still exists. For all our work, it does, and it will continue to exist until such time as we sit down and really consider mental health and mental capacity legislation, including who makes the decisions about who comes under what piece of law. Until we sort out that gap, people will still be deprived of their liberty. We can call it by a different name, but they will be.
I will ask the Minister to reflect on one thing. Nobody came to this legislation believing that DoLS had to be preserved. Everybody knew that it was wrong. Everybody understands that we need to make greater and better use of the limited professional resources for overseeing the lives of people detained for one reason or another. We should listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and reflect on what else Parliament may have to do over the next five, six or seven years to make sure that the gap is addressed once and for all so that people are not wrongfully detained.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I will very briefly add my thanks to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the Bill team, for listening. I also thank everyone from outside who brought their own experience, either individually or as part of a professional group, a voluntary sector group or the care home sector. I thank personally those in the Welsh Government who arranged meetings for me and also brought expertise, coming from a different health service framework. That was important because this legislation must apply across England and Wales. So I add my thanks to others.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I hope this is the final remark. This is indeed the place where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, we all say how wonderful we are; and I think we probably are. The Minister has set the homework that the Commons needs to undertake to get this Bill into even better shape; it needs to consider length of renewal periods, the interface with Simon Wessely’s review, the role of IMCAs, remaining conflicts of interest, impact assessments and implementation, and indeed, the issue of the definition of deprivation of liberty, which the Minister has undertaken to tackle. It also needs to discuss money, budgets and so on, as we have not done so during the passage of the Bill.
I have a few thanks to add to those of other noble Lords. First, I thank the organisations that have given us so much support during the passage of the Bill. If noble Lords cast their minds back to the summer, we were thrown into this Bill at very short notice, as were those organisations. I thank Mencap, VoiceAbility, Mind, the National Autistic Society, the Alzheimer’s Society and the Relatives and Residents Association. I must also mention Lucy Series at Cardiff University, who provided some fantastic briefing.
I thank colleagues from across the House who put things on hold over the last few months to respond to the challenge of this Bill. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and I were exchanging emails while we were on holiday at the end of the summer. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their work. I thank the Minister for listening and for always being available. If I am honest, I think that members of the Bill team might have been on a bit of a learning curve about how to deal with legislation in the Lords, but they eventually seemed to get it. We are much nicer here when it comes to dealing with Bills—but Bills are hard work for everybody involved. Finally, I thank my own team. In the Chamber I thank my noble friends Lord Hunt, Lord Touhig and Lady Wheeler, as well as my noble friend Lord Cashman for his support in the early days. Outside the Chamber I thank Molly Critchley and Bernadette Daly, who have been absolutely brilliant. We will meet our Commons team tomorrow to talk about what we think they need to do.
Tenant Fees Bill
Tuesday 11th December 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Tenant Fees Act 2019 View all Tenant Fees Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 129-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (7 Dec 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I will first speak briefly on Amendments 1, 2, 5 to 12, 16 to 19, 33, 35 to 41, 60 and 66, which are minor and technical and are intended to bring consistency and ensure the Bill best delivers on its policy intent.
First, while unlikely, as the Bill is drafted a letting agent could conceivably require a tenant to enter into a contract for services with themselves for additional services related to letting, such as providing an inventory. Amendment 5 clarifies that letting agents are prohibited from requiring a tenant or other relevant person to enter into a contract with themselves.
Secondly, it is possible that a relevant person other than a tenant might be a party to a tenancy agreement or an agreement with a letting agent. We have made amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 to be clear that, where a person is acting on behalf of a tenant or guaranteeing a payment of rent, that person cannot be charged a default fee unless otherwise permitted by the Bill.
In the same vein, Amendments 9 to 12 to Clause 4 provide that a term of agreement which breaches Clause 1 or Clause 2 does not bind a relevant person. Similarly, Amendments 33 and 35 to 41 replace the references to “tenant” in Clause 28 as it applies to pre-commencement tenancy agreements and agreements with letting agents with references to “relevant person”.
Finally, we want to ensure that we use consistent language and terminology throughout the Bill. Amendment 66 changes a reference to “incorrect and misleading information” to “false and misleading information” to align with other references in Schedule 2. Amendments 16 to 19 ensure that the language on day and date in Clause 11 is consistent, and Amendment 60 makes it clear that the definition of a television licence in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 applies to the entire Act.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, since we have begun Report I should declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I simply say that these are helpful and relevant amendments that have our support.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken on Report, I draw the House’s attention to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, did. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and his officials for a number of the amendments we will discuss, in this group and others. Generally they are very helpful and improve the Bill. That is good news for tenants, and I am genuinely very grateful for that. That is not to say that I agree with everything in the Bill, but I am pleased to say we are making progress. I am very happy to support these amendments and I concur with the noble Lord’s comments.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lords’ support. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, we are all clear that the purpose of the Bill is to ban agents and landlords from charging unfair letting fees to tenants. However, in achieving this objective it is crucial that the legislation does not have an adverse impact elsewhere. Amendments 3, 4 and 29 to 31, in my name, ensure that the Bill does not prevent vital work supporting tenants more broadly.
First, Amendments 3 and 4 exclude local housing authorities or organisations acting on behalf of a local housing authority from the definition of “relevant person” under the Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, for raising this issue during Second Reading. Local authorities have a duty, as housing authorities, to help the homeless to find accommodation. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996, the recent Homelessness Reduction Act and the homelessness code of guidance. We recognise that, as part of this, councils might need to provide support to applicants—financial or otherwise—to access private rented accommodation. This is vital work, and Amendments 3 and 4 ensure that it can continue. These amendments will ensure that local housing authorities can make payments in connection with a tenancy when acting on behalf of a tenant or guaranteeing their rent.
Secondly, Amendments 29 to 31 ensure that the important work of Homeshare schemes, and its parent network in the UK, Shared Lives, can continue. I have said on multiple occasions that the Government strongly support the work of organisations such as Homeshare in matching a licensee, usually a young person in housing need, with a licensor, usually an elderly householder in need of companionship, sometimes combined with some low-level care or assistance. I know that support is shared throughout the House.
The Bill would have unintentionally prevented Homeshare organisations operating by banning payments made by the licensor in respect of the advice and support received from Shared Lives. I reiterate that the intention of the Bill is not, and never was, to undermine or prevent this important and innovative work continuing. I thank in particular my noble friends Lady Jenkin and Lady Barran for taking up this issue and bringing it to the House’s attention.
The Government recognise that we must take this opportunity to amend the Bill to ensure that such work is not adversely affected. To do this, our amendments provide for changes to Clause 26 to exclude from the Bill such licences as those granted under a Homeshare scheme. We have specified that an excluded licence will be one granted to the licensee by a licensor who resides in the housing, where particular conditions surrounding the grant, renewal and continuation of that licence are met. These conditions include a requirement for a charity or a community interest company to give advice to the licensee or licensor in connection with the grant, renewal or continuation of the licence and where the licensee provides companionship or companionship and low-level care or assistance, together with one or more payments in respect of council tax or utilities, for example. Such arrangements are indicative of Homeshare organisations.
The amendments will therefore ensure that excluded licences that meet the conditions I have just set out are exempt from the tenant fee ban. I hope that my noble friend Lady Barran will agree that these amendments address the concerns she raised in Committee and that this achieves our shared ambition—one we can all surely support—which is that organisations such as Homeshare can continue doing their fantastic work well into the future.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, the Minister referred to what I said at Second Reading and he is entirely right. I welcome Amendments 3 and 4. They are hugely helpful because they give local housing authorities the flexibility they need to do their job properly, and for that reason they have our support.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in supporting these government amendments. It certainly is an important function for local authorities. I have to confess—and I refer to my interest as a sitting local councillor—that I am not entirely sure where the funding for this comes from. Do the Government support this financially, or is it left entirely to local authorities? In the latter event, will he look into the extent to which authorities are financing this important element of support for tenants? We certainly support both amendments.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Shipley, for their support. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but I suspect that this money comes from local authorities—although of course it finds its way from successive Governments. I suspect that this is part of their functions, but I will certainly cover that in a letter, if I may. The noble Lord never misses an opportunity to focus on an issue such as this, and I will be very pleased to respond to him.
“(10) The reference in subsection (9)(b) to a person does not include—(a) a local housing authority within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985 (see section 1 of that Act),(b) the Greater London Authority, or(c) a person acting on behalf of an authority within paragraph (a) or the Greater London Authority.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, Amendments 14, 15, 45 to 48, 61 to 65 and 67 to 70 in my name relate to the treatment of holding deposits. I have been sympathetic to some of the arguments put forward by noble Lords on holding deposits, and I agree that more action is needed to address these issues. I propose to do that in the Bill, rather than in guidance or regulations, to improve transparency and enforcement.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as one of the happy band of vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. I agree with much of what the Minister has said, but with specific reference to Amendment 48 I thank the Government for listening and accepting our amendment, moved in Committee, regarding letting agents and landlords receiving multiple holding fees from several people for one property. The arguments for this were well made in previous stages of the passage of this Bill. It has been recognised by pressure groups, by the industry itself—interestingly enough —and now by the Government that taking financial advantage of prospective tenants is totally unacceptable and bad practice. This simple but significant amendment corrects an injustice and will help many for whom navigating the private rental market is already a stressful and expensive business. We look forward to a speedy implementation, which I believe will be in May 2019.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and also as a practising chartered surveyor and private rented sector landlord. Mercifully, I have managed to steer clear in a personal capacity of managing agents—at least for the last many years.
I have one query on the way in which the holding deposit arrangements are intended to function. I quite understand the geometry that sits behind this and the reason for it, so I will not go over it again. But let us suppose that a prospective tenant, having been provided with all the relevant information, pays a holding deposit and then, through some reason of default which would allow the agent to retain part or all of that deposit, there develops an argument as to what proportion—perhaps the whole—should be retained or not. That could take some while to resolve. Meanwhile, the agent is debarred from taking a holding deposit from anybody else, even though it may be clear beyond peradventure that the original deal with, and intention of, the tenant, whose holding deposit is still being hung on to, will not go ahead.
I can see that this could put an undesirable element of drag into the situation. I can also see that it might be the godmother of unforeseen consequences, in that the agent may feel that it is becoming a problem—a rather metropolitan problem, if I may say so; I think of zones 2, 3 and 4 of central London as the areas where a lot of this goes on, although I know it is not unique to there. The corollary to that is that the agent may say, “I’m not going to take a holding deposit at all. It is on a first-come, first-served basis. I have various people interested and the first who comes through my door with the relevant boxes ticked gets it”. That does not seem at all helpful either. That does not happen in my part of leafy Sussex, because we do not deal with things in that way and do not have that sort of high-pressure tenant demand. But I can certainly see it happening in zones 2 and 3 and I wonder what the Minister has to say about how he sees that working in practice, without having some perverse effects on the market.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for their contributions to the debate on this part of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness very much for her comments and support.
I thank the noble Earl very much for his support and for raising the issue relating to holding deposits. First, as he will be aware, there is no obligation upon an agent or a landlord to operate a holding deposit system if they do not want to do so. It is optional. But where it applies and there is a dispute, if the two parties agree that there is no chance of pursuing the tenancy, it would obviously be open at that stage for the landlord or agent to take another holding deposit in relation to the land in question, as it were, where that matter is truly settled. If it is not settled, a lot will turn on the particular circumstances of the case. If the noble Earl feels that he would like to discuss this further, I will ensure that officials are available to discuss possible scenarios with him. It may be that he wishes to discuss a particular scenario, but in the meantime I commend these amendments to the House.
“The Housing and Planning Act 2016 is amended as follows.( ) In section 134 (client money protection schemes: approval or designation), after subsection (2) insert—“(3) Regulations under this section may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State in connection with—(a) the approval or designation of a client money protection scheme,(b) conditions which must be complied with by the administrator of such a scheme,(c) the amendment of such a scheme, or(d) the withdrawal of approval or revocation of designation of such a scheme.”( ) In section 135 (enforcement of client money protection scheme regulations)—(a) in”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 22, 27, 32 and 71 in my name which relate to client money protection legislation as set out in Part 5 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Approval and Designation of Schemes) Regulations 2018 and the Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Requirement to belong to a Scheme etc.) Regulations, which are due to come into force on 1 April 2019.
Client money protection schemes ensure that landlords and tenants are reimbursed in the event of a letting or managing agent going into administration, or where the agent misappropriates their money while in their control. This client money can include rent paid by tenants as well as money passed on by landlords for the purpose of making repairs to a property. Client money protection is designed to be the last resort once a tenant or landlord has already pursued the agent directly or exhausted recovery via the property agent’s insurance. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for all the hard work she has done in this area alongside the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on this important legislation that will give tenants and landlords the financial protection that they deserve.
The client money approval regulations set out the conditions that scheme providers must meet in order to be an approved provider. My officials have been working with scheme providers since the summer to support them in making an application. The requirement regulations require property agents who handle client money to belong to an approved scheme. They are due to be implemented on 1 April 2019.
During our extensive engagement with schemes it has become apparent that certain elements of the regulations do not work as originally intended. I thank noble Lords for their discussion of these points in Committee, which I have considered carefully. I am keen to ensure that the client money protection legislation delivers on our commitment to give landlords and tenants financial security but not in such a way as to impose disproportionate and unnecessary burdens on industry, which could have the adverse and perverse effect of increasing costs for tenants and landlords. The amendments in my name ensure that the rules strike a balance while giving tenants and landlords robust protection. This is so that the amount of cover that schemes are required to provide is proportionate, taking into account the availability of insurance and the level of risk posed by members. We are committed to maintaining our published timetable so that mandatory client money protection can come into force on 1 April 2019. Our intention is that, once we have approved sufficient schemes, we will make the requirement regulations and of course they will be made before the relevant provisions in this Bill amending these regulations are commenced.
Turning to Amendments 21, 22 and 17, first, we have clarified that money that has already been protected through a government-approved tenancy deposit scheme is not required to be doubly protected by a client money protection scheme. This was never our policy intent. Secondly, we will not require schemes to pay out where certain risks are excluded by insurers. These policy exclusions typically refer to events such as war, terrorism or confiscation by the state. It was never the policy intent for such unlikely events to be covered. We believe it would be unreasonable to require schemes to pay out where they may be unable to underwrite their risk with insurance because such insurance cover is commercially unavailable.
Thirdly, we are providing that the level of insurance held by schemes is proportionate to the risk of client money loss rather than requiring scheme providers to ensure they can provide cover for every penny held in an agent’s client account. We will in guidance ask schemes to determine the appropriate level of insurance cover necessary to cover a worst-case scenario—their maximum probable loss. This allows schemes to consider controls that their members have in place as well as the amount of client money that is at risk. We will challenge schemes’ calculations through our assessment of their applications for approval to ensure that they are robust.
Fourthly, we are specifying that client money protection schemes can allow limits per individual claimant and scheme aggregate limits that are at least equivalent to the scheme’s maximum probable loss. Allowing schemes to set a limit per individual claimant ensures that they are not required to pay out without limit. It will ensure that more sophisticated large corporate landlords take responsibility for the control of client money held on their behalf. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has similar individual claim limits, and we are seeking to replicate this accepted practice. It is, of course, vital that consumers are aware of any such limits and we are requiring schemes and their members to be transparent with clients about the limits of protection. The limit would be designed to be more than sufficient to cover likely claims, but if it became apparent that that was no longer the case, the limit would need to be changed.
We expect schemes to act reasonably and to apply to amend the scheme rules if it becomes apparent that their level of cover is no longer sufficient. Any scheme that cannot demonstrate that it has obtained sufficient cover to pay out on all likely claims will not be approved. Allowing both individual and aggregate limits ensures that tenants and landlords have sufficient financial protection, which is the purpose of client money protection, but not in such a way that would have a disproportionate impact on the industry.
Further, for a transitional period of 12 months taking us to 1 April 2020, we are permitting agents to join a scheme if they are making all efforts to apply for a client account but have not yet obtained one. We fully expect all agents to hold their client money in a separate account to ensure that client money is suitably protected. As the Government work with the banking industry, we do not wish to impose unrealistic barriers around a client account that agents are unable to meet by 1 April 2019.
Finally, the duty to enforce the requirement for letting agents to belong to a client money protection scheme is set out in Regulation 5 of the client money protection schemes for property agents regulations. We have therefore clarified in Amendment 32 that the lead enforcement authority set up under the Bill can also enforce the regulations. Amendment 71 is a consequential amendment to the title of the Bill.
Without Amendments 21, 22, 27, 32 and 71, there is a risk that certain scheme providers will be unable to comply with the regulations and therefore leave the market, or that the costs of cover will increase substantially for agents, which could have knock-on consequences for landlords and tenants.
I am proposing these amendments to this Bill to ensure that implementation of mandatory client money protection is not delayed and can be delivered as promised from 1 April 2019. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for giving attention to these matters and raising her concerns.
I also address Amendments 23 to 26, which the noble Baroness tabled. I understand her concern that if notice is served on a scheme without any reasons requiring the scheme to amend its rules within 30 days, the scheme may be unable to comply and feel that it has no other option but to wind up its operation. Clearly such a situation would be in neither the Government’s nor the scheme’s interest.
However, I do not believe that the amendments tabled are necessary and as such do not propose to accept them. Specifically in relation to the timeframe and the giving of reasons, the Government are bound by general public law obligations which include acting transparently and fairly and supplying reasons for decisions. I am happy to reaffirm that. We could not seek arbitrarily to serve notice without having discussed our concerns and options with the scheme. The notice is likely to be the final step in the process, having explored with the scheme what amendments would be required. The 30-day notice period is subject to a different period being set out in the notice and therefore we do not believe that Amendment 26, which amends the timeframe, is necessary.
Nevertheless, as noble Lords will appreciate, the Secretary of State needs to be able to serve a notice to compel schemes to make changes where, for example, there has been a significant change in the size for a scheme. With an increase in the membership base, it might be necessary to increase the cover. It is on that basis that I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot accept her proposal but, with the reassurances that I have given, I hope that she will not press the matter.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his sympathetic and speedy response to the issues that I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who is in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is not in his place at the moment, raised in Committee about how the department was implementing these otherwise very welcome plans to introduce mandatory client money protection for letting agents. It was because the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and I had worked very well with the Minister on that initiative that we were concerned that the whole thing was going a bit pear-shaped because of the introduction of unrealistic requirements on the main providers of CMP protection. But, thanks to the Minister—I have to thank him for that—the department moved very rapidly, as it is well able to, and responded to make the significant changes that the Minister has now introduced. We both thank and congratulate the people who drafted those changes. They will, of course, help ensure that both RICS and ARLA can continue to protect both landlords and tenants through their schemes.
There was just one area on which I sought clarification, which is indicated in the amendments to which the Minister has already responded. I know that these have been discussed with RICS, ARLA and officials. I am getting nods from the Box. The government amendments introduce a power, as has been said, for the Secretary of State to serve notice on scheme administrators, requiring them to amend their scheme rules in respect of the cover they may hold. We consider this a sensible addition because it ensures that appropriate cover will be in place and, importantly, it will prevent arbitrage between the different schemes. That is something that we had not thought of but we are very grateful that officials did so.
As has been noted, our concern is with the current wording, which we did not feel gave sufficient clarity on how such a scheme, where it proved necessary, could close in an orderly manner where the Secretary of State’s justified requirements proved unworkable. The amendments I tabled were therefore to clarify that schemes may alternatively close in an orderly manner in such a scenario, rather than leaving administrators open to a lot of uncertainty. I know that the Minister appreciates those points, as we have heard. It was a backstop—if I may say that—that we were looking for: something we hoped would never be needed but should be there in case. I think the Minister has given the reassurance needed about flexibility and the use of normal other legislation to ensure that such reasons are given, and in the right way. I am getting nods from other people on that point.
Although I tabled the amendments, they were clearly only a bit of final tidying up. We are very pleased and grateful that, as a result of what we raised in Committee, it has been possible to bring this forward in such a timely manner that we can go ahead on 1 April not just, unfortunately, to leave the European Union, but, perhaps a little more importantly, to have client money protection in place.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as a modest landlord, as declared in the register. The new rules to protect rent paid by tenants to agents do not protect landlords fully. Letting agents will have to join the new government-approved client money protection insurance scheme, but changes proposed by the Government as to the level of insurance held by these schemes will not cover the full value of rental money held by agents. I cannot see the point of that. Is it not in the interests of all parties for the insurance effectively to cover all potential liabilities? The scheme will not pay out in some circumstances; it will be able to cap the amount it pays out. Surely it would be more sensible for the scheme to provide for full protection.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his incredible help and support in getting this legislation through, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who has done a lot to make this Bill work.
I want to pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, because it is one of the questions that arises from these amendments. Perhaps I may tackle it by dealing with the level of insurance required, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Flight, was talking about. The best way of looking at it is perhaps to think about what the Residential Landlords Association —the RLA—has recently said. It advises, consequent to the changes to the legislation, that to help reduce the risk, landlords should spread their properties across a number of agents so that they reduce the need to go over whatever insurance limits were agreed with each one. The RLA summed this up by saying:
“Otherwise we will encourage landlords to ensure that they do not put all their eggs in one basket and spread the risk”.
Are the Government aware of landlords spreading their risk rather than keeping it with one agent, and what will the Government’s attitude be? I believe that is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. This is a great improvement to the legislation but I would like the Minister to respond to my question.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this part of the legislation and turn to the various contributions. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, very much for her support, for bringing this forward and for the characteristic grace with which she has dealt with the matter today. Our calculations have been made on the best assessment of the highest probable loss; that should be the basis for deciding cover. We have also taken heed of the fact that, for example, for bank deposits there is a maximum amount currently protected; it would be somewhat perverse if this were a higher amount. Such matters have influenced what we seek to do. It is not the maximum loss; we have taken heed of the highest probable loss, as is the customary arrangement. We also have to take account of what the industry can bear and what is in the interests of all tenants and landlords; that is what has guided us.
On landlords seeking more than one form of cover, I will write to the noble Lords, Lord Flight and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, so that they get the full picture. With that, I commend the government amendments in this group and reject the others.
“Client money protection schemes: approval and designation
(1) The Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Approval and Designation of Schemes) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/751) are amended as follows. (2) In regulation 2 (interpretation), in the definition of “client money”—(a) in paragraph (a), for “agency”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “management”, and(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “,but does not include money held in accordance with an authorised tenancy deposit scheme within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 6 of the Housing Act 2004 (see section 212 of that Act);”.(3) In regulation 4 (amendments to an approved scheme), after paragraph (3), insert—“(4) This regulation does not apply to an amendment made in accordance with a notice served under regulation 8(1D)(b).”(4) In regulation 5 (conditions which must be satisfied before approval may be given)—(a) in paragraph (1)(a)(iii), for “and without any deduction” substitute “, subject to paragraph (1A)”,(b) in paragraph (1)(c)(i), for “administration of the scheme” substitute “failure of scheme members to account for client money to persons entitled to that money”,(c) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) The Secretary of State may determine that the condition in paragraph (1)(a)(iii) is satisfied where the rules of the scheme have the effect that the scheme administrator is required to make good M’s liability—(a) only up to such amount as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,(b) only if or to the extent that M’s liability can be made good without exceeding such aggregate limit on the liability of the scheme as a whole as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, or(c) only if M’s liability arises in relation to a risk that the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate for the scheme to insure against.”, and(d) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) The rules of the scheme are to be treated as complying with paragraph (2)(f) if they provide that, until 1 April 2020, they have effect as if they required scheme members to make all reasonable efforts to hold client money in a client money account with a bank or building society authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority.”(5) In regulation 8 (conditions with which scheme administrators must comply)—(a) in paragraph (1), after “practicable” insert “—(a) after that member joins the scheme, and(b) after the scheme rules are amended under paragraph (1D)(a) or in accordance with a notice served under paragraph (1D)(b).”,(b) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Paragraphs (1B) to (1E) apply if the rules of the scheme have the effect of requiring the scheme administrator to make good the liability of a scheme member—(a) only up to a certain amount, (b) only within an aggregate limit on the liability of the scheme as a whole, or(c) only in relation to certain risks.(1B) The certificate provided under paragraph (1) must include—(a) information about the amount referred to in paragraph (1A)(a), (b) information about the limit referred to in paragraph (1A)(b), or(c) details of where to find information about the risks referred to in paragraph (1A)(c),as the case may be.(1C) Paragraphs (1D) and (1E) apply if the Secretary of State considers that—(a) the amount referred to in paragraph (1A)(a) is no longer appropriate,(b) the limit referred to in paragraph (1A)(b) is no longer appropriate,(c) it is no longer appropriate for the rules of the scheme to exclude liability in relation to one or more of the risks referred to in paragraph (1A)(c), or(d) it is appropriate for the rules of the scheme to exclude liability in relation to one or more risks that are not among the risks referred to in paragraph (1A)(c).(1D) The Secretary of State may—(a) where the Secretary of State is the scheme administrator, amend the scheme rules with the effect that the amount, the limit or the risks are replaced with such different amount, limit or risks (as the case may be) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;(b) in any other case, serve a notice on the scheme administrator requiring that person to amend the scheme rules with the effect that the amount, the limit or the risks are replaced with such different amount, limit or risks (as the case may be) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(1E) The scheme administrator must comply with a notice served under paragraph (1D)(b)—(a) within the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, or(b) within such longer period beginning with that day as the Secretary of State may specify in the notice.”,(c) after paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) The scheme administrator must maintain insurance that—(a) covers any foreseeable liability which may arise in connection with the failure of scheme members to account for client money to persons entitled to that money, and(b) is appropriate with regard to the size and number of scheme members and the amount of client money held by scheme members.(3B) Before renewing the scheme’s insurance, the scheme administrator must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State to the type and amount of insurance.(3C) The Secretary of State may approve the renewal of the scheme’s insurance only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that, if the insurance is renewed as proposed, the scheme administrator will continue to comply with paragraph (3A).”,(d) in paragraph (5), at the end of sub-paragraph (a) for “; and” substitute “,(aa) where paragraph (1B) applies— (i) information about the amount referred to in paragraph (1A)(a),(ii) information about the limit referred to in paragraph (1A)(b), or(iii) information about the risks referred to in paragraph (1A)(c),as the case may be, and”, and(e) after paragraph (6) insert— “(7) In this regulation, references to renewing a scheme’s insurance (however expressed) include obtaining new insurance.(8) Paragraphs (2), (3B), (3C) and (4) do not apply where the Secretary of State is the scheme administrator.”(6) The amendments made by this section are without prejudice to any power to make an order or regulations amending or revoking the regulations mentioned in subsection (1).”
“Client money protection schemes: requirement to belong to a scheme etc
(1) The Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc.) Regulations 2019 are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “client money”—(i) in paragraph (a), for “agency”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “management”, and(ii) at the end of paragraph (b), for “; and” substitute “,but does not include money held in accordance with an authorised tenancy deposit scheme within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 6 of the Housing Act 2004 (see section 212 of that Act);”, and(b) at the end of the definition of “regulated property agent”, insert “;“scheme administrator” has the same meaning as in the scheme approval regulations (see regulation 2 of those regulations); and“scheme approval regulations” means the Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Approval and Designation of Schemes) Regulations 2018.”(3) In regulation 3 (requirement to belong to a client money protection scheme), omit paragraph (2).(4) In regulation 4 (transparency requirements)—(a) before paragraph (1) insert—“(A1) Paragraph (1) applies if the scheme administrator of an approved or designated client money protection scheme provides a certificate under regulation 8(1) of the scheme approval regulations to a regulated property agent.”, and(b) in paragraph (1)—(i) in the words before sub-paragraph (a), for “A” substitute “The”, and(ii) omit sub-paragraph (a).(5) The amendments made by this section are without prejudice to any power to make an order or regulations amending or revoking the regulations mentioned in subsection (1).”
““excluded licence” means a licence which is granted to a licensee by a licensor who resides in the housing where—(a) a charity or community interest company gives advice or assistance to the licensee or the licensor in connection with the grant, renewal or continuation of the licence, and(b) the only consideration for the grant, renewal or continuation of the licence is—(i) the provision by the licensee of companionship to the licensor, or such provision together with the provision by the licensee of care or assistance (other than financial assistance) to the licensor, or(ii) provision of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (i) together with one or more payments in respect of council tax, a utility, a communication service or a television licence;”
““television licence” has the meaning given by paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 1;”
“(6) In regulation 5 of the Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc.) Regulations 2019 (enforcement)—(a) in paragraph (1) omit “, subject to regulation 8(3)”,(b) after that paragraph insert—“(1A) Paragraph (1) is subject to—(a) regulation 8(3), and(b) section 24 of the Tenant Fees Act 2018.”, and(c) in paragraph (3), after “the Secretary of State” insert “or the lead enforcement authority (if not the Secretary of State)”.(7) The amendments made by subsection (6) are without prejudice to any power to make an order or regulations amending or revoking the regulations mentioned in that subsection.”
(a) the amount of five weeks’ rent, where the annual rent in respect of the tenancy immediately after its grant, renewal or continuance is less than £50,000, or(b) the amount of six weeks’ rent, where the annual rent in respect of the tenancy immediately after its grant, renewal or continuance is £50,000 or more,”
“( ) “five weeks’ rent” means five times one week’s rent,”
“(5) A payment of a holding deposit is not a permitted payment if—(a) the landlord or letting agent to whom the deposit was paid has previously received a holding deposit (“the earlier deposit”) in relation to the same housing, (b) the landlord or letting agent has not repaid all or part of the earlier deposit, and(c) none of paragraphs 5 to 11 of Schedule 2 have applied so as to permit the landlord or letting agent not to repay the earlier deposit or the part that has not been repaid. (6) The reference in sub-paragraph (5)(a) to a landlord or letting agent receiving a holding deposit does not include the landlord or letting agent doing so before the coming into force of Schedule 2 .”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 51 and 53 to 57 in my name, and to Amendment 54, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. These relate to payments made in the event of a default under Schedule 1 to the Bill.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill permits landlords and agents to charge default fees where a tenant fails to perform an obligation or discharge a liability arising under or in connection with the tenancy. This provision has been subject to much debate and discussion, and I have welcomed noble Lords’ valuable contributions on it—in particular, those from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.
I maintain that we should not seek to remove default fees provision from the Bill entirely and that landlords and agents should be able to recover certain costs sustained during the tenancy where the tenant is at fault. However, I have listened carefully to the representations that have been made and I appreciate the concern that landlords and agents might seek to use the default fees provision as a backdoor to charging tenant fees. This is certainly not something that we want to see happen and, although the Government have already taken considerable steps to minimise abuse, I agree that more can be done.
I believe that there are two main instances where tenants may be required to pay a default fee: if they lose their key or other security device giving access to the housing or if they fail to pay their rent on time. With that in mind, our amendments specify that these are the only circumstances under which a landlord or agent can charge a default fee. Amendment 54 will ensure that landlords and agents cannot write arbitrary default fees into tenancy agreements and makes very clear to tenants, landlords and agents where a default fee can be charged.
Landlords or agents will be able to require a default fee for the late payment of rent where the payment has been outstanding for 14 days or more. Amendment 56 sets out that landlords or agents will be able to charge interest at no more than an annual parentage rate of 3% above the Bank of England’s base rate for each day that the payment is outstanding. Any amount above this will not be permitted; it will be a prohibited payment.
With respect to the charging of a default fee to cover the costs associated with replacing a lost key or other security device, any such charge must not exceed the landlord’s or agent’s reasonable costs incurred and must be evidenced in writing to the person who is liable for the payment. The amount of any payment which exceeds the reasonable costs to the landlord or agent in respect of the default will be a prohibited payment. I believe that the risk of such a list being incomplete is mitigated by the provision in Clause 3 to bring forward amendments to the list of permitted payments through affirmative regulations, should this prove necessary.
I take this opportunity to speak to Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. This amendment seeks to provide that if one tenant loses their key or pays their rent late then other tenants in a joint tenancy cannot be held accountable. I am afraid that I cannot agree to such an amendment. Joint tenants are jointly and severally liable for the rent and for maintaining the property. That is the essence of a joint tenancy. If one joint tenant does not pay the rent, the landlord can seek repayment from all the other tenants. This is what tenants agree when they sign a joint tenancy and Amendment 52 would introduce a significant change as to how joint tenancies work in that regard. It would risk unfairly penalising landlords and unsettling the law in an established area.
With regard to a lost key, tenants will, again, be jointly responsible for the keys in the same way as they are all responsible for any damage to the property. Of course, tenants can make their own arrangements, and I am sure that the person who loses the key will generally be the one who makes any associated payment, but the tenants are all responsible to the landlord for the keys. It would be a significant change to alter this position and one that could be quite hard to enforce if there were disagreements between the tenants about who lost the key.
Finally, it has never been the intention that the Bill should affect a landlord’s or agent’s right to recover damages for breach of contract. Amendment 57 clarifies this position and ensures that such payments will not be outlawed under the ban. I am aware that there has been some concern about this provision and would like to provide reassurances now, as well as explaining why I cannot accept Amendment 58. Given that we are now listing default fees in the Bill, it is important that we include the provision permitting charging for damages. Otherwise it could be interpreted that we are prohibiting contractual damages. This would not be fair and would be a significant and substantial change to existing law.
Amendment 58 has no substantive effect. I believe that the intent of the noble Lord is to ensure that any damages payments are reasonable and evidenced in writing. It is not necessary to provide an amendment to this effect. In general, damages are meant to put the innocent party back in the position they would have been in had the contract not been breached—nothing further. No reasonableness test is therefore needed, nor appropriate. Similarly, to enforce a damages claim landlords or agents are required to go to court or to seek to recover them from the tenancy deposit. In both cases, they need to provide evidence to substantiate any claim. There is already a large amount of case law dealing with what is appropriate in a contractual damages case. I assure noble Lords that the inclusion of the damages provision is not a back door to default charges, as was suggested by the recent Citizens Advice briefing. Its analysis of this situation is inaccurate.
Regardless of whether an amount is specified, Clauses 1(6)(b) and 2(5)(b) prohibit an agent or landlord attempting to insert a clause requiring a payment—for example, saying that if you do X, you must make a payment—except in so far as this is permitted by paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, as amended. Both the examples of types of damages given in the Citizens Advice briefing do this and would therefore be banned under the Tenant Fees Bill. I appreciate the concerns raised by the noble Lord and seek to reassure him about this. I believe we had sought to agree that I could give reassurance on this at Third Reading, but I understand that we have not been able to come to any agreement about not voting. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give that reassurance shortly, or am I getting inaccurate information?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Right. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to cover that.
As I have said, long-standing case law supports the courts not enforcing clauses that have no relation to the loss actually sustained, which in most cases would constitute an unfair contract term under applicable consumer law. The amendment proposed by Citizens Advice in its briefing would have no substantive effect. It is already the case in the Bill as drafted that the relevant person may recover the amount, or part, of damages where a claim for damages has been determined by the court or settled by agreement between the parties.
I believe the amendments in my name will help protect tenants from spurious charges by making it very clear when a default fee can be charged. I also remind noble Lords that we have made a number of significant amendments to respond to all the key concerns raised to date. I believe the amendments proposed in my name provide a fair compromise. I hope noble Lords agree with this, and I know it is in our interests to proceed with this vital legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
I apologise to the House; I would have spoken earlier, but it did not seem that Amendment 42 was actually moved. Even now, I think it is appropriate to mention my concern about that. Why cut back to five instead of six weeks? I declare my interest, which is in the register. Many landlords find that, towards the end of a tenancy, the tenant pays nothing and they are well out of pocket—even if they have six weeks’ rent—if the property is damaged, which happens more frequently than one would hope. I cannot see that it is worth making the major differentiation between five and six weeks. I was perfectly happy with six weeks, and I thought it was fair that everyone should be in the same position.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I similarly would like to speak to Amendments 42, 43 and 44, on tenancy deposits. The objective for everyone is to have a fair balance that works. I note that, at Second Reading in the Commons, the Secretary of State referred to the then proposal of six weeks as,
“a balance of greater protection to tenants while giving landlords the flexibility to accept higher-risk tenants”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/18; col. 642.]
I also note that Scotland has an eight-week as opposed to a six-week arrangement.
I urge the Government to think again on this issue. Reducing the security deposit to five weeks’ rent rather than six leaves scope for unfairness to landlords. There is always the risk that, at the end of a long tenancy, the tenant will leave the property in a poor state or will have had pets. Cutting the deposit to five weeks’ rent will quite likely leave the landlord out of pocket. In turn, that will make landlords more cautious about the tenants they take on, at a time when the need for more rented accommodation is acute. This is not a huge issue, but the Government’s previous proposition of six weeks was the sensible and fair balance. I do not understand why they have moved to five weeks, and nor does the industry—having not been consulted or advised about this, it feels somewhat mistreated by the Government.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, if I might, I will intervene at this stage to speak to Amendment 43, which is what we are currently talking about. In the flurry of amendments not being moved, no debate took place, but the issue has now been raised by two noble Lords.
My name is attached to the amendment that refers to five weeks, and I think it is the right conclusion. I want to thank the Government for having agreed a change from six weeks to five. At Second Reading and in Committee, we went through every option: from the Scottish model of eight weeks to my probing amendment proposal of four weeks. As I recall, the Government at that stage said the figure would be between the four weeks we requested and the eight weeks that apply in Scotland.
There is a lot of money at stake here for tenants. Having heard from the perspective of landlords, I would like to speak on behalf of tenants. For a large number of poorer people, a change from five to six weeks could make finding that level of deposit a strain. Anything that can be done to minimise that strain is a good thing. The figure was described as being “up to” six weeks, but the fact that it is now five weeks will be of benefit to a large number of tenants. Because it covers the difficulty that, in some months, four weeks may not be a month and many people operate tenancy agreements on a monthly not weekly basis, it is legitimate for the Government to propose that we go to five weeks. I want to express our support for the Government’s decision.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I beg to differ slightly from the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, although I well understand that this involves a cash-flow issue for tenants. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for bringing us back to this set of amendments. The Minister himself defended the Government’s long-standing line that a six-week deposit was fair. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, we seem to have moved away from that without apparent pause for breath.
I declare a non-interest here, as I do not charge deposits for tenants and have not done for a number of years due to special personal circumstances. The industry standard has been six weeks for a considerable time. In my part of Sussex, six weeks’ rent represents a figure between £1,200 and £1,800 in general terms. That does not go a long way if, in addition to non-payment of rent—bear in mind that defaults tend to have many heads—the tenant also leaves the property in a damaged condition, including damage to carpeting, kitchen units and electrical wiring.
Given that situation, can the Minister explain why it is now five weeks? If you strip out non-payment of the last month’s rent, under this proposal you are left with a single week’s rent to cover any other form of loss. Does that represent a fair balance? I am not sure that it does.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Perhaps I may ask for clarification: are we now talking about five weeks, or about default?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it might be helpful to the House if I deal with the rental issue first. If anyone wants to speak on that, I suggest they do so now. I apologise that we glossed over it earlier.
If there are no other points on the rental, I shall deal with the issues raised by my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Flight, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
On the point that we have moved significantly from six weeks to five weeks, yes, it is a movement, but it is scarcely, as the noble Lord suggests, a fundamental shift. It is not as if we are moving from 10 weeks to one week. Perhaps I may provide some reassurance. All the evidence is that most people currently take deposits of between four or five weeks. It is not therefore massively inconsistent with current practice.
At the top end of the market we are retaining the six-week limit for the most expensive properties where the fittings and fixtures may be more costly. It will remain at six weeks where the annual rental is more than £50,000. I hope that provides some reassurance to those noble Lords who have raised the concern.
These are not issues of principle so much as matters of judgment. It is the judgment of Solomon and there will always be some people who disagree with where we are. However, as I say, we have looked at current practice, listened to what outside organisations have said and on that basis we have fixed it at five weeks for most people, but at the top end of the market we have retained the six weeks.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, we have jumped around these groups of amendments today. There appears to be an issue with the printing of the Whip’s sheet.
I wish to address my remarks largely to Amendments 50 to 58. Generally, I am happy with what I have heard from the Government today on most amendments, particularly those in this group. The exception is Amendment 57, to which I will address most of my remarks.
Members of this House discuss amendments to Bills all the time, but most are never voted on: they are probing and have been tabled to get answers from the Government. We go backwards and forwards as we seek to improve the legislation. My Amendment 58 is very much in that vein. The Government have put down Amendment 57, which I fully accept deals with damages and makes it clear that if there are any issues, the terms can be clarified in the future. Somehow, damages are being turned into prohibited payments, and I do not want to do that either, so I am with the Government on this issue.
However, on looking at Amendment 57, we were concerned about the heading, “Payment of damages”. We went to the Public Bill Office and talked to colleagues. We are concerned that, as written, it could be deduced—obviously, it is open to argument—that the reasonableness and fairness of such a payment cannot be questioned. It is not so much about going to court, but what happens when people are drawing up agreements and so on. We should remember that we are dealing with tenants and landlords, and the relationship between the two is not always one of equals.
For that reason, I have proposed, as an amendment to Amendment 57, my Amendment 58, which would simply remove the three words of the heading: “Payment of damages”. The provision would be retained but the heading would go. Removing the heading would, in effect, add the provision to the previous group, where a protection is provided: actions have to be reasonable, and reference is made to “evidence”. That is all my amendment is intended to do. I do not know if this is the right way to do it, but it has certainly enabled us to have this discussion today.
I tried to get an assurance from the Government that they would come back at Third Reading and discuss this issue further. It may be that people cleverer than me can come back with a better amendment. All I am trying to do is ensure that tenants are treated fairly and properly. I was happy to come back to this issue at Third Reading, and gave an assurance that we would not vote on it. I have the text message to prove it on my phone; I do not know what else I can say. To then be told that I did not give such an assurance—that is just not the case. I am really upset about this.
All I want to do is get this right. I do not want the Bill to become law and in a year’s time, we find the Government saying, “Oh, we made a mistake. We will change it when parliamentary time allows. We should have this on the rogue landlords’ database. We did not listen to you last time, Lord Kennedy, but of course you are right. When parliamentary time allows, of course we will put it right”. My intention is to get this right today. I have given that commitment and I have the text message, so I cannot see what the problem is in coming back at Third Reading in a few weeks’ time and getting it right. We are not going to vote on it, but I think the position should be clarified.
Baroness Grender
My Lords, I will come on to damages in a moment, but first perhaps I may take us back to the celebratory moment on this group of amendments: the fact that there has been a significant change on default. This has been welcomed loudly and clearly by those who lobby most for tenants. This is an extremely significant change which this House has introduced through a government amendment to which I have added my name. It specifies what a default fee is: it is now going to be for a key or a security device or for late payment on interest for rent.
I know that we are trying to sort out the damages issue, but I want to thank the Minister and in particular his Bill team. I am sure that they will read this tomorrow in the Official Report. I also thank Rhea Newman and Poppy Terry at Shelter, Hannah Slater and Dan Wilson Craw at Generation Rent and Caroline Aliwell at Citizens Advice. We have all been working extremely hard behind the scenes with many meetings, for which I thank the Minister and the Bill team, to get to a very good place with regard to default. Our original intention was to get it out of the Bill altogether, but the fact that the wording has been greatly tightened and is now so specific is a very big leap forward. It goes back to the original intention that many of us had when we wanted to propose this Bill in the first place.
Before we go back to the controversial issue of whether a loophole has now been introduced as regards damages, I would like to take a moment to remind us of what has now gone and was going to be charged by landlords, some of whose tenants are on an extremely low income or even no income. One of my favourites is £45 for the procurement of a dustpan and brush. Another is £500 for a reference and credit check, £200 to remove a new set of saucepans that had been left for the next tenant—a lovely example—and £100 for cobweb removal. Those are some examples of things that will no longer be a threat as a result of a loophole, thanks to the extremely welcome change of default.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it may be convenient for me to say that I regret any misunderstanding. I too thought that we had an agreement on this matter. Perhaps I may say two things. First, I propose to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Secondly, I will be very happy to engage in discussions on this issue ahead of Third Reading. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, suggested, I am convinced that there is no reason for the noble Lord to be concerned—but I know that he is and so I will be happy to engage in discussion ahead of Third Reading. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am absolutely delighted. I thank noble Lords for that. There was obviously some confusion, but I am sure that we can get this sorted out by Third Reading. I thank the Minister very much.
(a) the loss of a key to, or other security device giving access to, the housing to which the tenancy relates, or(b) a failure to make a payment of rent in full before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date (“the due date”) on which the payment is required to be made in accordance with the tenancy agreement.”
“(4) If, in the case of a payment required to be made to a landlord or a letting agent in respect of a relevant default within sub-paragraph (2)(b), the amount of the payment exceeds the amount determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (5), the amount of the excess is a prohibited payment.(5) The amount referred to in sub-paragraph (4) is the aggregate of the amounts found by applying, in relation to each day after the due date for which the rent remains unpaid, an annual percentage rate of 3% above the Bank of England base rate to the amount of rent that remains unpaid at the end of that day.(6) In sub-paragraph (5) “Bank of England base rate” means—(a) the percentage rate announced from time to time by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England as the official dealing rate, being the rate at which the Bank is willing to enter into transactions for providing short term liquidity in the money markets, or(b) where an order under section 19 of the Bank of England Act 1998 is in force, any equivalent percentage rate determined by the Treasury under that section.(7) If—(a) a landlord requires a relevant person to make a payment to the landlord in respect of a relevant default within sub-paragraph (2)(b), and(b) a letting agent subsequently requires a payment to be made to the letting agent in respect of the same default,the payment referred to in paragraph (b) is a prohibited payment.(8) If—(a) a letting agent requires a relevant person to make a payment to the letting agent in respect of a relevant default within sub-paragraph (2)(b), and(b) a landlord subsequently requires a payment to be made to the landlord in respect of the same default,the payment referred to in paragraph (b) is a prohibited payment.”
“Payment of damages
_ A payment of damages for breach of a tenancy agreement or an agreement between a letting agent and a relevant person is a permitted payment.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Baroness Grender
“( ) If, in relation to a change of tenant in a shared tenancy, the current tenant or tenants find a suitable replacement tenant, then a payment under this paragraph in excess of £50 is a prohibited payment.”
Baroness Grender
My Lords, there is an expression about having your cake and eating it, and this is my attempt to get a little extra icing on the top. It is a modest amendment which would ensure a £50 cap when there is a change of tenancy and the sharers recruit the new tenant. I wrote to the Minister yesterday to explain my rationale for this. In Committee, we attempted to change a bit more with regard to this cap, which is a floor rather than a ceiling at the moment; we would like it to be a ceiling rather than a floor. But I have now pared it down to have one single purpose.
In a home of multiple occupation—HMO—where people are sharing, when one of the tenants drops out and a new person comes in, they will be charged a sum. Let me give you an example from Generation Rent:
“Each tenant swap included a massive fee for a new tenant of £250”.
To us that may sound modest, but when young people are sharing and counting the pennies, it is a heck of a lot. The case study continues,
“hence making it difficult for us to find people to move in. We had to do everything, advertise and do 9 interviews”.
Students were not accepted,
“as they did not fulfil agent’s criteria to move in unless they have a UK based guarantor”.
The fee of £250,
“did not even include a reference check of £90”,
or £180 with a guarantor. The case study concludes the fees were,
“£430 in total for a new sharer”.
The sharers do the vast majority of the work—people do not want to share with someone they know nothing about, without checking them out, and checking they can pay the rent—and then have to pay for the pleasure of it. This is a tiny, modest amendment, but it recognises that when people share a place and they do the donkey work, there should be a £50 cap on the charge for the change in sharer.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, may be pleasantly surprised by the fact that I agree with the vast majority of what she says. She does not need to express too much surprise. However, she will need to define the term “suitable” further. To give her a clue, in commercial landlord and tenant agreements, there is very often an assignment, or something similar, and there is usually a formula of words about an incoming tenant or the assignee being of no lesser standing legally than the outgoing tenant. There will need to be some formula of words there.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about this issue. I support her on the principle of this because I have children who have rented accommodation in London and I know exactly what goes on, so I can relate to it. But we need a formula that can be defined in law and determined in some way. It should be determined pretty promptly; it is no good if this goes into some sort of arbitration situation for weeks on end. These things need to be sorted out quickly in the interests of everybody.
That is the only reservation I have: the term “suitable” needs better clarification and definition. The question of suitability to whom and in whose eyes needs to be capable of some sort of resolution.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge of this last amendment, which relates to the charges that can be imposed for variation, assignment or novation of a tenancy. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for focusing the amendment, which we discussed in Committee, on capping fees on a narrower range of circumstances than originally proposed, namely where the outgoing tenant finds a replacement. I agree that this should reduce the costs for the landlord and therefore the amount he can charge, because, as the noble Baroness said, the tenant would have done all the donkey work.
However, we have previously agreed that it is not fair to ask landlords and agents to pay fees arising from the action or request of a tenant that varies the original contract they both signed. The Bill provides that a landlord or agent can charge a tenant for a change of sharer, but such fees are capped at £50 or reasonably incurred costs if higher. We do not want to impose a hard cap on the amount.
Landlords and agents should feel able to agree reasonable requests to vary a tenancy. While we do not expect this charge to exceed £50, it is only fair that where it does so landlords and agents can recover their reasonably incurred costs. Further, we do not want to create a situation—I am sure the noble Baroness does not either—where landlords are reluctant to agree to a change of sharer because they think that they will not be able to recover their reasonable costs. This would not help the tenants, who would be required to break their contract if they wanted to leave.
I understand and support the principle of the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. Landlords and agents will need to be able to demonstrate when challenged that their costs are reasonable—for example, if they have incurred a loss in rent from agreeing to a change of sharer. If, therefore, a tenant found a suitable replacement who took over the tenancy and the landlord or agent suffered no loss it would not be reasonable to charge for this and any amount charged in those circumstances would be prohibited by the Bill. A landlord or agent could not double-charge rent.
However, to focus specifically on the noble Baroness’s amendment, there could be circumstances where, even though the tenant found a suitable replacement—I take the point from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that it is suitable for the tenant but not necessarily for the landlord—the costs incurred by the landlord or agent could exceed £50. This could occur, for example, if more significant referencing were needed with the replacement tenant or there were disagreements respecting the return of the tenancy deposit that required additional time and renegotiation. Although we envisage such a scenario to be rare, it would not be fair to penalise the agent or landlord in those circumstances. We also would not want the landlord to refuse the replacement tenant found on the basis that referencing and other pre-tenancy checks were likely to be more complicated.
The landlord or agent is not permitted to charge more than is reasonable, so would have to be able to evidence any such additional costs. Our guidance makes the position under the Bill and existing law clear to tenants, landlords and agents. With these assurances, although I understand the disappointment clearly etched on her face, I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment against the assurances I have given.
Baroness Grender
I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I will stick there, since I have the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, backing something I have suggested. With all the amendments we now have in the Bill, which are extremely welcome, we need it to go through as quickly as possible. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“_(1) The person who received the holding deposit must repay it if—(a) that person believes that any of paragraphs 7 to 11 applies in relation to the deposit, but(b) that person does not give the person who paid the deposit a notice in writing within the relevant period explaining why the person who received it intends not to repay it.(2) In sub-paragraph (1),“the relevant period” means—(a) where the landlord decides not to enter into a tenancy agreement before the deadline for agreement, the period of 7 days beginning with the date on which the landlord decides not to do so;(b) where the landlord and tenant fail to enter into a tenancy agreement before the deadline for agreement, the period of 7 days beginning with the deadline for agreement.”
“12_ Paragraph 9, 10 or 11 does not apply (so that paragraph 3(c) does apply) if, before the deadline for agreement—(a) the landlord or a letting agent instructed by the landlord in relation to the proposed tenancy breaches section 1 or 2 by imposing a requirement under that section on the tenant or a person who is a relevant person in relation to the tenant, or(b) the landlord or a letting agent instructed by the landlord in relation to the proposed tenancy behaves towards the tenant, or a person who is a relevant person in relation to the tenant, in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect the tenant to enter into a tenancy agreement with the landlord.”
Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 October be approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 38th Report, 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the Digital Economy Act 2017 introduced a requirement for commercial providers of online pornography to have robust age-verification controls in place to prevent children and young people under 18 accessing pornographic material. Section 14(2) of the Act states:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying … circumstances in which material is or is not to be regarded as made available on a commercial basis”.
In a sense, this is a small part of the legislative jigsaw needed to implement age verification: indeed, it is the last piece. I therefore beg to move that the draft regulations and the guidance published by the British Board of Film Classification, which is the designated regulator in respect of these measures, on age-verification arrangements and ancillary service providers be approved.
I bring to the attention of the House the concerns of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and thank them for their work. I will address their concerns in a moment and the Motion to Regret later, but before considering the specific points related to this debate, I want to remind the House of why the Government introduced this requirement.
In the offline world, there are strict rules to prevent children accessing adult content. This is not true of the online world. A large amount of pornography is available on the internet in the UK, often for free, with little or no protection to ensure that those accessing it are old enough to do so. This is changing the way that young people understand healthy relationships, sex and consent. A 2016 report commissioned by the Children’s Commissioner and the NSPCC makes that clear. More than half of the children sampled had been exposed to online pornography by the age of 15 and nearly half of boys thought pornography was “realistic”. Just under half wished to emulate what they had seen. The introduction of a requirement for age-verification controls is a necessary step to tackle these issues and contributes towards our commitment to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online. I urge noble Lords, in the ensuing debate, to bear this primary objective in mind and help us ensure the commencement of age verification as soon as possible.
The draft Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations set out the basis on which pornographic material is to be regarded as made available on a commercial basis. The regulations cover material on websites and applications that charge for access and they also cover circumstances where a person makes pornographic material available on the internet for free but that person receives other payment or reward in connection with doing so, for example through advertising revenue. It was clear from debates during the passage of the Digital Economy Act that it was not Parliament’s intention that social media sites on which pornography is only part of the overall content should be required to have age verification. That is reflected in the draft regulations we are debating today. We have set a threshold to ensure proportionality where material is made available free of charge. Thus there is an exemption for people making pornographic material available where it is less than one-third of the content on the website or application on which it is made available. This will ensure that websites that do not derive a significant proportion of their overall commercial benefit from pornography are not regarded as commercial pornographic websites. However, should such a website or app be marketed as making pornographic material available, a person making pornographic material available on that website or app will be considered to be making it available on a commercial basis, even if it constitutes less than one-third of the total.
This is a proportionate way of introducing a new policy. I am confident that these measures represent the most effective way of commencing this important new policy, but my department will, of course, keep it under review. Indeed, the Secretary of State must report on the regulatory framework within 12 to 18 months of commencement. In addition, the upcoming online harms White Paper will give us an opportunity to review the wider context of this policy.
We have also laid two pieces of BBFC guidance: the Guidance on Age-verification Arrangements and the Guidance on Ancillary Service Providers. The guidance on AV arrangements sets out the criteria by which the BBFC will assess that a person has met the requirements of Section 14 of the Digital Economy Act to ensure that pornographic material is not normally accessible by those under 18. The criteria mandate: an effective control mechanism at the point of access to verify that a user is aged 18 or over; strict requirements on age-verification data; a requirement to ensure that “revisits” do not allow automatic re-entry; and prevention of non-human operators exercising the age-verification regime. The BBFC also provided examples of non-compliant features to help interested companies. The latter guidance provided a non-exhaustive list of ancillary service providers that the BBFC will consider. This list is not exhaustive, to ensure that this policy remains flexible to future developments. The BBFC published draft versions of both pieces of guidance and ran a public consultation for four weeks on the content. The draft guidance laid before this House takes account of comments received from affected companies and others.
I turn to the views of the JCSI, to which I referred earlier. We have been clear that although it will be a major step forward, age verification is not a complete answer to preventing children viewing online pornography, and we know that we are doing something difficult. Indeed, we are the first country anywhere in the world to introduce such a measure. We have considered the JCSI concerns carefully. We do not believe that the variation in the language of the legislation, between “met” and “applied”, will be difficult for a court to interpret. As for the committee’s concerns about the content threshold, the committee anticipates difficulty with the application and interpretation of the regulation. As I have already said, the regulation will not apply in a case where it is reasonable for the age-verification regulator to assume—those words are important—that pornographic material makes up less than one-third of the content. As is stated in the BBFC guidance, the BBFC will seek to engage and work with a person who may be in contravention of the requirement before commencing enforcement action.
I am aware that the committee has also drawn the special attention of both Houses to these two draft pieces of guidance, because in its view they fail to contain the guidance required by Section 25(1) of the 2017 Act and contain material that should not have been included. Section 3, paragraph 5 of the Guidance on Age-verification Arrangements sets out the criteria on age-verification arrangements which the regulator will treat as complying with age verification. The guidance then goes on, in paragraph 6, to give examples of features which, in isolation, do not comply with the age-verification requirement. This approach ensures fairness. It takes a product-neutral approach and, rather than recommending a particular solution, sets out principles to encourage innovation. The ancillary services providers’ guidance provides a non-exhaustive list of classes of providers which the age-verification regulator may consider as within scope in Section 3, paragraph 3. However, in order to ensure that this policy remains flexible for future developments, it is necessary that this is a non-exhaustive list. Where new classes of ancillary services appear in the future, the BBFC’s guidance explains the process by which these services will be informed.
The guidance includes additional material, as this is a new policy, and the regulator considered that it was important for stakeholders that its guidance set out the wider context in which the age-verification regulator will carry out regulation. This includes valuable guidance on matters such as the BBFC’s approach and powers, and material on data protection. We find it somewhat perverse that it should be prevented from including helpful guidance simply because it was not specifically mentioned in the Act.
We are also aware of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s special interest report. That committee raised some similar concerns to the JCSI; for example, on the content threshold and the requirements in the BBFC’s guidance. The responses to the concerns of the SLSC on these points are the same as the responses we have just given to the JSCI reports.
However, the SLSC also suggested that the House might want to ask what action the Government would take to tackle pornographic material available that does not fall within the criteria set out in the regulations. I appreciate that some pornography is available by means not covered by our regulations. This was the subject of extensive discussion during the passage of the Act. In particular, concern has been expressed about social media platforms. We expect those platforms to enforce their own terms and conditions and to protect children from harmful content. Indeed, the Government have been clear that online platforms must do more to protect users from such harmful content. We will set out our plans for new legislation to ensure that companies make their platforms safer, in the forthcoming online harms White Paper.
I recognise that age verification is not a complete answer but I am proud that this Government are leading the way internationally in our actions to protect children online. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in general support of the regulations and guidance. They relate to matters which I and others raised during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill in 2017 and, more broadly, to issues debated by the House a couple of years ago in a balloted debate that I introduced. The subject of that debate was the impact of pornography on our society. While there was some disagreement over the impact of pornography on adults, there was virtual unanimity that children needed to be protected from pornography—as far as this could reasonably be achieved. I seem somehow, by default, to have become the episcopal expert on pornography. I am trying to live that down. It is just the way it has fallen—although I often find myself talking from these Benches about things I have not had much experience of.
The regulations deal with protecting children through the introduction of robust age-verification procedures for accessing at least some pornographic sites. I welcome them but I note that there remains good evidence for believing that adult access to pornography is also often harmful. The recent report on sexual harassment by the Women and Equalities Select Committee in the other place made this point in a new context, particularly in relation to violent pornography. My welcome of the regulations and guidance is also tempered by some questions which they pose, and which I would like to put to the Minister.
My main concern relates to access to pornography on websites that do not charge for access. Provided their pornographic content is limited to one-third of their total content, they are exempted from the regulations. They may not charge but they may make money from advertising and other sources. What is the rationale for choosing one-third and not, say, 10%? Parents really do not want their children to stumble across online pornography and arguably children are more likely to do that if it is a website that does not charge in the first place. Why is it one-third? I realise that enforcement against every site would be a challenge, but surely the obligation to use access by age verification should be on all sites which promote pornography. What we need is a culture change in relation to child protection and not a partial, piecemeal and limited approach, which I fear these regulations, in some respects, provide.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I know that the Minister has carefully considered the definition of “commercial pornography”, and I am grateful that he has engaged with my comments on previous drafts of the regulations and that we have met in person to discuss these. Further to those conversations, I am happy to say that I support the regulations and the guidance, and certainly encourage other noble Lords to do the same, although I have a number of concerns I would like to highlight.
First, I note that it has taken more than 18 months since Third Reading to get to the point where this House and the other place are considering the regulations to determine what is deemed commercial pornography and the regulator’s guidance on age verification. I hope the Minister can assure us that the full implementation of age verification for pornographic websites is now very close. Indeed, it would be even better if he could tell the House when he expects it to be operational.
Secondly, I note that in its report on the Bill, Sub-Committee B of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that the measures available to the BBFC, as the age-verification regulator, should be applied “fairly and transparently”. I certainly hope that they will be. To this end, I ask the Minister to place a letter in the Library nine months after age verification goes live, with an update on the number of websites with AV in place and how many enforcement actions have taken place. I hope that that will be possible.
Thirdly, I cannot address the regulations and guidance that will help give effect to Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act without reflecting on the fact that, thanks to amendments introduced by your Lordships’ House, Part 3 will no longer address some very serious problems as effectively as it would have done. When Part 3, as amended, is implemented, there will be nothing in it to prevent non-photographic and animated child sex abuse images, which are illegal to possess under Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, being accessed behind age verification. This is a serious problem. In 2017, 3,471 reports of alleged non-photographic images of child sexual abuse were made to the Internet Watch Foundation, but since none of these images was hosted in the UK, it was unable to act.
Of course I appreciate that technically the amendments to the Digital Economy Bill, which removed from the regulator the power to take action against such material when it is behind age verification, did not have the effect of legalising possession of this material. The 2009 Act remains in place. However, as virtually all this material is beamed into the UK from other jurisdictions, the arrival of the Digital Economy Bill in your Lordships’ House meant that for the first time we had a credible means of enforcing that law online. There is no need for a regulator to be in the same jurisdiction as a website that it determines to block.
As I said at the time, greeting the first really credible means of enforcing that law online by removing the relevant enforcement mechanism from key parts of the Bill inevitably called into question our commitment to the law. I appreciate that there is arguably a mechanism for trying to enforce the law: the National Crime Agency can work with overseas agencies if websites with this material are identified. However, the mechanism is slow and expensive, and it remains unclear how it can have any effect if the domestic laws of the countries in question permit non-photographic child sex abuse images. To this extent, it was no surprise to me that in response to a Written Parliamentary Question in September 2018, the Government were unable to say whether the NCA had taken action against any websites, or whether any sites had been removed by overseas jurisdictions. ComRes polling published in the summer shows that 71% of MPs think that the regulator should be empowered to block these sites. Only 5% disagree.
The other loophole, of course, relates to all but the most extreme forms of violent pornography. Given that under the Video Recordings Act 1984 it is not legal to supply this material, it was entirely proper that the Digital Economy Bill, as it entered your Lordships’ House, did not accommodate such material. However, amendments were introduced in this House to allow it behind age verification. As I observed at the time, this sent out the message loud and clear that violence against women—unless it is “grotesque”, to quote the Minister on Report, at col. 1093—is, in some senses, acceptable.
My concerns about the impact of such material remain and have been mirrored by those of the Women and Equalities Select Committee in its report, which I referred to earlier. Of great importance, it states:
“There is significant research suggesting that there is a relationship between the consumption of pornography and sexist attitudes and sexually aggressive behaviour, including violence. The Government’s approach to pornography is not consistent: it restricts adults’ access to offline pornography to licensed premises and is introducing age-verification of commercial pornography online to prevent children’s exposure to it, but it has no plans to address adult men’s use of mainstream online pornography”.
I appreciate that we cannot deal with these problems today. The Government must, however, urgently prioritise how to address them. They could deal with the matter very quickly if they were to make time for my very short two-clause Digital Economy Act amendment Bill, which addresses the matter in full. With these caveats, I warmly welcome the regulations and the guidance.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s decision finally to lay this guidance and the regulations for the House’s approval. It has not come a moment too soon. As the Minister knows, I have been concerned for some time that we should progress implementation of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act and stop dragging our feet while harm is being done to our children. Almost every week, I hear of cases of children as young as four experiencing the traumatic horror of accidentally discovering pornographic material online. This can be devastating for young minds, causing them anxiety and depression.
This is ground-breaking child protection legislation and we should be proud, because it will be the first of its kind in the world. The UK is leading the way in online safety and setting an example for other countries that are looking to introduce similar controls. We can demonstrate that it is possible to regulate the internet to ensure that children can be protected from online pornographic material that we would never let them near in the offline world.
There is an abundance of evidence showing how harmful this material can be and, significantly, that children often do not seek it out but stumble across it. Research by the NSPCC found that children are as likely to stumble across pornography by accident as to search for it deliberately. Also significantly, the NSPCC reports that children themselves support age verification. Eighty per cent of young people felt that age verification is needed for sites that contain adult content.
The age-verification regulator, the British Board of Film Classification, has been working on implementing the legislation for a number of months and has kept me briefed on its progress. I am confident that it will successfully deliver age verification in the UK to prevent children stumbling across and accessing pornography. Its guidance sets out principle-based standards which will encourage even more innovation and allow for new means of age-verifying consumers in the future. This is important because if this regime is to work, age verification needs to be robust and privacy must be protected.
My concern, as always, is with child protection, but I recognise the need to ensure that this regime is seamless enough to prevent commercial incentives to avoid compliance. For this reason, I am pleased that the BBFC has said in the annex to the guidance that it intends to introduce a voluntary scheme to bring in a higher privacy standard than the GDPR—which is already of a high standard.
I would like the Minister to reassure us that this scheme will be in place shortly and that the Government will fully support it. It is most important that, as the age-verification regulator, the BBFC will have a range of enforcement powers, including requesting ancillary service providers and payment service providers to withdraw their services to non-compliant websites, and instructing internet service providers to block them. These powers should be highly effective in achieving the legislation’s objectives and should be used as swiftly as possible to encourage compliance. I ask the Minister: how will the Government encourage ancillary service providers, who can only be “requested” to take action, to co-operate fully with the BBFC? I have been told by the BBFC that PayPal, Visa and MasterCard have already indicated that they will withdraw services where there is non-compliance. I also welcome the support that I understand will be given by the ISPs and mobile network operators. Their role will be crucial.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I first apologise to the House that I missed the first two minutes of the Minister’s contribution. I would like to make some comments. Some have already been said and I hope that by repeating them, it will not lessen their impact. I am pleased to join other noble Lords in supporting the Government on bringing these regulations and the guidance before the House to implement age verification. However, I have some questions about implementation.
First, I note that the regulations apply to all pornographic websites that charge a fee or, if access is free, where there is benefit in some other way from pornographic content, perhaps through advertising. In cases of the latter, at least one-third of the site’s content must be pornographic for it to be required to provide AV, unless the website specifically markets itself as providing pornographic content, in which case AV requirements apply regardless of how much pornographic material is made available. This arrangement has caused Sub-Committee B of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to ask two key questions, which I put to the Minister today. First, how will the BBFC measure pornographic content on a free website so that it can come to a determination that one-third of the content is pornographic? Secondly, how will we protect children from pornography on free websites where less than a third of the content on the site is pornographic?
It seems to me that, in introducing this legislation, the Government have very properly recognised that it is not appropriate for children to stumble upon online pornography; they should be protected from this material through age verification. Having conceded this point, however, what justification can there be not to protect children from accidentally stumbling across pornography on a free site where 30% of the content is pornographic? Is there not a sense in which children are more likely to stumble accidentally on pornographic content located on websites with other content than on a site that is completely focused on providing pornography?
Turning to the guidance document, I note that page 9 suggests that age verification may not need to be conducted every time someone visits a website. Does this mean that if a child uses a computer that has previously been age verified by a parent, they will automatically be able to access adult sites without any further checks to establish that the computer is being used by an adult? What protections will be applied to prevent this happening? Moving on to page 7 of the guidance, I note that a website found to be in breach of the age-verification requirements will be given a “prompt timeframe for compliance”. However, what does “prompt” mean in practice? Will a website be required to rectify the deficiency within a day, a week or a month, or maybe longer? I hope the Minister will be able to make that clearer.
One of the enforcement mechanisms that has caused some questions is the ability to issue fines. At Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill, almost two years ago to the day, I raised some practical questions about how fines would work in practice, as many of the sites are based overseas. I remind your Lordships that, when that Bill was in Committee in the other place, the Government said that it was possible in some circumstances to fine sites in other jurisdictions. They said:
“We want to be able to fine non-UK residents—difficult as that is—and there are international mechanisms for doing so. They do not necessarily reach every country in the world, but they reach a large number of countries. For instance, Visa and other payment providers are already engaged in making sure that we will be able to follow this illegal activity across borders”.—[Official Report, Commons, Digital Economy Bill Committee, 20/10/16; col. 217.]
I tabled some probing amendments in Committee here on 2 February 2017 about the use of fines, which I was then concerned would have “limited utility”. I can conclude only that the Government have come to the same view, as they are not proposing to bring those parts of the Act into effect. However, given that at the time of the Bill the Government were adamant that the ability to fine was needed, I hope there will be an analysis of the effectiveness of the other enforcement mechanisms going forward and that, if there is a gap that could be met by fines, the Government will bring the fining provisions into effect and designate a regulator to collect the fines—something the BBFC is not designated to do.
Finally, I echo what other noble Lords have said about non-photographic child sex abuse images, which it is illegal to possess under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and all but the most violent pornography, which it is illegal to supply under the Video Recordings Act. As I said at the time, I believe that a terrible mistake was made in moving amendments to prevent the regulator blocking this illegal content. I am pleased that Section 29 of the Act requires a review of the Part 3 definitions 12 to 18 months after the implementation of that part, which could make good this shortfall. This delay, however, is too long. I call on the Government to address this shortfall in the new year by making time for the Digital Economy Act amendment Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. It is a very short Bill, the substance of which is all in a single clause. Crucially, however, that clause addresses all the presenting issues. I very much hope that the Government will seize this opportunity.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have some concerns about the regulations before us, although I have to say that the Government are trying to do something that is very difficult, if not impossible, which is to regulate the internet. I am perhaps not as enthusiastic as my noble friend Lady Benjamin on this.
These regulations do not adequately protect children from pornography or, to use the Minister’s words in his introduction, they are not the complete answer. No system of age verification can do that as, as other noble Lords have said, pornography is available on sites other than commercial pornography sites and the potential controlling measures could not in reality be used for those other sites. Asking UK internet service providers to block Tumblr and Twitter is not a runner in the real world, and these are free-to-use services, so asking financial institutions not to take payments for non-compliant sites would not work either.
In fact, using a virtual private network to appear to be in a country that does not have age verification is a free and easy way to get around any age-verification process. As the noble Lord and my noble friend said, we are the first country to try this and therefore there are plenty of countries that one can pretend to be in in order to get round the system.
Age verification without statutory guidelines to protect the privacy of adults seeking to access legal pornographic material on the internet is a significant threat to people’s privacy but, having said that, the arrangements that the British Board of Film Classification has made around a voluntary code, where certification is given to companies providing age verification to give people some confidence that their privacy will be protected, is a second-best but welcome measure.
These measures, in addition to creating the risks to privacy and failing to thwart curious and determined young people, are of use in preventing children accidentally stumbling across pornography, as my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, but only on commercial porn websites. Does the Minister feel that this could as easily be achieved by making it mandatory for websites that contain pornography, whether one-third or more of the website, to have “Adult only” warnings before the browser of the internet can access pornographic images as opposed to an age-verification system?
The other use of these regulations is an attempt to restrict access to extreme pornography, which is a bit like Brexit—it is not enough for some and goes too far for others, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, indicated. I am not sure that, as some have suggested, age verification limits access to educational LGBT+ resources; I am not sure that commercial porn sites contain such beneficial information. As I have said before and will say again, what is really needed is compulsory, age-appropriate, inclusive sex and relationship education for all children, including telling even very young children what they should do if they encounter online pornography—that is, to turn off the computer immediately and inform a parent or guardian—as that is unfortunately something that will inevitably happen despite these regulations.
My overall message is that we should not delude ourselves that these measures are going to be wholly effective in preventing children viewing online pornography or that they will adequately protect the privacy of adults seeking to access legal material on commercial porn websites and that as a result we should be careful that we do not lull ourselves into a false sense of security just by passing these measures.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to say a few words before the summing up. We need to remind ourselves that the purpose of these regulations is to protect children, including those coming up to adulthood. We are trying to prevent them thinking that some fairly unsavoury habits that are not medically good for them are normal. That is the challenge. These websites have teaser adverts to try to get people drawn into pornography sites to buy harder-core or more detailed pornography. We are not trying to do anything about people who are willing to enter into a payment arrangement with the site but to make sure that children are stopped at the front end and are prevented from seeing the stuff that will give them the wrong impression about how you chat to a girl or a girl chats to a boy and how you behave with members of the same sex or the opposite sex in a sexual relationship. We need to be quite quick on this sort of stuff because if we are going to try to stop this being widespread we need to block it.
There is an awful lot of guff in this. It has taken a long time for these regulations to get here—we really expected them about a year ago. I do not know what DCMS has been doing during this time. I know it had some draft guidelines a long time ago, but perhaps they were so young that they were uneducated too and tried to learn about these things—I do not know.
The point about the adverts is they sit there in front. We are probably going to have buttons on the front of the website stating that people have to verify their age. That will take people off, probably to third-party sites which know them and anonymously verify that they are over 18 and that is when they can get into the website. However, the website is going to want to put something up for that first encounter. I wonder whether this is not an opportunity to think positively and perhaps put up something about understanding the beginning of a relationship and how you can get excited and go forward without going to the harder aspects which involve penetrative sex et cetera. There may be an opportunity there. That is a bit of a red herring because we are talking about the regulations, but it may be a positive thought for the future.
The thing that worries me particularly is paragraph 2.5 of the BBFC guidance which refers to sites that are,
“mostly frequently visited, particularly by children”,
and are,
“most likely to be sought out by children”.
Social media may not be marketed as carrying or giving access to pornography, but it does so on a huge scale. This one-third rule is very odd because it is easily abused. There are about 39 million UK users of Facebook, so do we say that if 12 million are putting up pornography that is okay because it is under the one-third threshold? Earnings would be very hard to measure, given Facebook’s turnover, so how are we going to do the one-third? It is very odd. The purpose of this is to protect children, so I do not think we should be having very high thresholds to let people get away with it.
There are two things that really worry me. Paragraphs 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 of the guidance are on enforcement. It is going to be very slow. By the time the BBFC has sent out a warning and it is received, given another notification, published this, waited for the website to write back, et cetera, how long will it take? Websites that want to get round it will game the system. If they start doing that, the big websites—they are on side with this and want to help because they have got teenage children and are not paedophiles but are trying to sell adult pornography to adults and therefore want to help, believe it or not—will lose too much business; they will have to go with the flow and play the same game, in which case the whole thing will get wrecked.
If the Internet Watch Foundation, without a true legal basis, can get sites blocked immediately, why cannot we, with proper law? Everyone has had warnings about it. The whole of the industry around the world has apparently been talking about it for the past year. The BBFC has spoken at such events. Everyone knows, so I cannot understand why we cannot act more quickly and go live from day one. If anyone does not comply, that is bad luck. We could set up some pre-notification stating: “If you do not comply by tomorrow, you have had it”.
The other matter is the certification scheme, which is voluntary. A big hole is that because this is under a DCMS Bill, it could not touch privacy and data security. That is an ICO responsibility. The security of people’s data is regulated elsewhere, and the ICO has only recently started to show an interest in this, because it is overloaded with other things. There is now a memorandum of understanding between the BBFC and the ICO, which is very good. They could be brought together in a certification scheme. The BBFC cannot enforce data security and privacy, because that is an ICO responsibility, but a certification scheme could state that a site cannot be certified unless it complies with all the legal standards—both the Data Protection Act 2018, which the ICO is looking at, and the BBFC rules on age verification for websites and providers. That could be good.
If your Lordships want to know how to do it, I fear I shall give a plug for the British standard for which I chaired the steering group, BS 1296; it includes a whole section on how to do the GDPR stuff, as it was then called. We could not mandate it in the British standard because other standards mandate it, but that tells you how to do it.
The certification needs to be clear, otherwise there will be a whole lot of wishy-washy stuff. I am not sure that a voluntary scheme is a good idea, because the BBFC will have a lot of hard work trying to check sites that decide not to comply, so it will have to certify them by another method. That will be difficult.
However, at the end of the day, there is a lot of willingness between all the parties to try to get this to work. The world is watching us—quite a few other countries are waiting to see whether this will work here. That will help enormously. We should try to get a lot of cross-stakeholder information and co-operation, a round table of all interested parties from child protection all the way through to those running the adult sites. Perhaps some good could come out of that. Certainly, everyone wants to help the BBFC and DCMS, the parent body. Everyone wants to help the ICO. We would like to get this to work: there is a lot of good will out there if only we could get moving to make it work properly.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches want the regulations and draft guidance to come into effect. The child protection provisions are a significant element of the Digital Economy Act which, although not entirely in line with what we argued for during its passage, we supported in principle at the time and still do, while realising, as my noble friend Lord Paddick said, that they are not the conclusive answer to children’s access to pornography. As he also said, a number of areas need to be addressed in the course of today’s debate.
For a start, as several noble Lords said, it seems extraordinary that we are discussing these sets of guidance nearly two years after the Digital Economy Act was passed and nearly a year after the Government published their guidance to the regulator, the BBFC. What was the reason for the delay?
Next, there is the question of material that falls within the definition of being provided on a commercial basis under the Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations, the subject of today’s debate. Several noble Lords mentioned this. As drafted, they do not currently include social media or search engines and on these Benches, we regret that the Government have decided to carve out social media from the definition. This is a potentially significant loophole in the regime. It is important that it is monitored and addressed if it damages effectiveness. It is in particular a major concern that social media and search engines do not have any measures in place to ensure that children are protected from seeing pornographic images.
The Secretary of State’s guidance to the AV regulator asks the BBFC to report 12 to 18 months after the entry into force of the legislation, including commenting on the impact and effectiveness of the current framework and changes in technology which may require alternative or additional means of achieving the objectives of the legislation. In addition, under Section 29 of the Digital Economy Act, 12 to 18 months after the entry into force of the scheme, the Secretary of State must produce a report on the impact and effectiveness of the regulatory framework.
This is therefore a clear opportunity to look again at social media. The Government have made some reference to legislating on social media, but it is not clear whether they intend to re-examine whether the definition of commercial pornography needs to be broadened. Can the Minister assure the House that this will be dealt with in the internet safety White Paper, that the Secretary of State’s report will cover the level of co-operation by services such as social media and search engines, which are not obliged to take enforcement action on notification, and that, in doing so, it will firmly tackle the question of access by children to pornography via social media?
Next is the question of resources for the age-verification regulator. This is a completely new regime, and with fast-changing technology, it is vital that the BBFC, as the AV regulator, has the necessary financial resources and stable grant funding to meet the important child protection goals. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will keep resources available to the BBFC in its AV regulator role under review and undertake explicitly in the Secretary of State’s annual report to deal with the question of resources enabling the BBFC to carry out its work?
Next is the question of the BBFC having chosen to adopt a voluntary scheme. On these Benches, we welcome the voluntary scheme for age-verification providers referenced in annexe 5 to the draft Guidance on Age-verification Arrangements. In fact, it bears a striking resemblance to the scheme that we proposed when the Act was passing through Parliament, which would have ensured that a scheme involving third-party companies providing identity services to protect individual privacy and data security would be engaged. As I recall, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, helped greatly in convening providers of digital identity schemes to show what was possible. I think he is still ahead of us today.
Our key objections were that what was originally proposed did not sufficiently protect personal privacy. The BBFC is to be congratulated on establishing the certification scheme. As I understand it, it already expects all the major providers to undertake the certification process. Furthermore, because the scheme is voluntary, these assessments will be for foreign-based as well as UK providers, which is a major achievement and could not be accomplished with a UK statutory scheme.
The key to the success of the voluntary scheme, however, is public awareness. I hope that the Minister can tell us what DCMS is doing to support the promotion of the BBFC’s kitemark in the three months before the scheme comes into effect.
Next, there are the JCSI criticisms set out in its report on 28 November. This House rightly always takes the criticisms of the JCSI seriously, and the Minister set out a careful response to them. I do not always pray a government memorandum in aid, but the BBFC was following the Secretary of State’s guidance to the AV regulator. Under the terms of Section 27 of the Digital Economy Act, as a result of amendments in the Lords during its passage, the BBFC was charged with having regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance. The JCSI suggests that the BBFC could have chosen to ignore “incorrect” Secretary of State guidance, but that would have put it in an impossible position.
I shall not adumbrate all the different areas, but the inclusion of what was necessary in compliance with Section 27, the advice on best practice, the annexe setting out the voluntary scheme and the role of the ICO all seem to be helpful as part of the guidance and proportionate in terms of what the AV regulator prioritises.
There are a number of other aspects of these sets of guidance worthy of mention too. As we have heard, this age-verification framework is the first of its kind in the world, and there is international interest in it. Are the Government discussing with the BBFC what lessons there are in terms of encouraging robust AV for younger age groups and for other types of potentially harmful content? Will the Government use the expertise developed by the BBFC as the age-verification regulator in the internet safety White Paper?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very good debate, and I thank the Minister for his introduction, which allows us to range quite widely over the issues in play. I would observe—and I would not have it any other way—that over the last couple of years, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, and I, and, indeed, one or two noble Lords who have spoken today, have spent a great deal of time together discussing and debating legislation and regulations which might apply to all pornography, and specifically in relation to protecting children. Some people bond over a coffee, football, the arts or shared hobbies; we do it with porn. In that sense I am with the right reverend Prelate who felt that he had to live it down in some way. I share his pain.
We have covered a lot of ground in this area and, although on the surface it is quite a narrow issue, getting the balance right between personal liberty and necessary regulation is never easy, and it is particularly hard to do given the technological changes that we are witnessing—in particular, the way in which information is now flowing through the internet.
I have been reading back some of the debates we had on the Digital Economy Act, as have others, and at some of the original regulations that we have already looked at which appointed the BBFC as the AV regulator. I want to make it clear that we do not want to hold up these statutory instruments—as noble Lords have already mentioned, they are already quite delayed. I have come to a provisional conclusion that what we have before us will not achieve what the Government intend, and may actually have unintended consequences and run the risk of stalling other, better alternatives, which I think we may have to consider in due course. Others have said this before, but it is worth repeating: these regulations are not future-proof; they are not comprehensive; they do not catch social media; they do not deal with overseas providers; they will not deal with non-photographic images and other more elaborate ways in which pornography is now being purveyed; and they do not bind together the companies involved to try to find a solution.
I will go through the regulations and make comments which are very similar to those that are already there and I will speak a bit to my own regret Motion. I will come back at the end of my remarks to where I think we need to go if we are going to take this issue further.
The general point on which I wish to start, before going on to the points raised by the scrutiny committees, is the argument I made before that a lot of the difficulty we have today with these regulations stems from the fact that we are trying to give statutory powers to a body that is essentially a private company. This is compounded—this comes up in the committee reports —by the fact that Parliament is not used to seeing regulations over which it has no direct authority, because they will be implemented through an arrangement between the department and a private body: the BBFC. In a sense, we are reading largely independent guidelines, fulfilling a mandate agreed within legislation but not subject to the specific scrutiny of this House, or indeed of the other place.
The BBFC is not a statutory body. It has no royal charter, so it cannot be assumed that it will act in the public good. It has a reasonable record, and it has statutory responsibility for videos and DVDs—but its work, for example in classifying films shown in the cinema, is done without any statutory authority. Will this issue be picked up in either the White Paper or the review which the Minister mentioned in his introduction?
My second point relates to the first in the sense that we have still not bottomed out the question of appeals that might arise as a result of the decisions being taken by the BBFC. We tried in the Digital Economy Bill to exert considerable pressure on the Government to get a separate regulator appointed as an appeals body. Indeed, we suggested that Ofcom would have been appropriate. Now we have a situation where the BBFC is the organisation of preliminary determinations and the body of first instance, but it is also the body for appeals. In principle, I do not think it is right that any body, statutory or otherwise, should be both judge and jury in its own cases. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Can this be reviewed as part of the process?
Thirdly, we are skating round the question of what exactly is obscene material. Why do we have two existing definitions—one that is repeated in full in the documents before us but also one that derives from the definition of extreme pornography which is in another Bill? We had a good discussion about this during the DEA. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mentioned some of the ideas that were considered and turned down at that time, but it was also raised in the Data Protection Bill—so it will not go away. I think that in the review that is coming, it is really important that we nail what exactly we are trying to say. Either it has to be done in terms of perception or in terms of physical activities. I do not think that it can be both.
Turning to the instruments themselves, on the electronic communications one, which was referenced by Sub-Committee B of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee, the issue seemed to be, as has already been said, the rather odd definition of a “commercial basis”. We are looking for assurances from the Minister in relation to how that will apply, particularly in relation to children who come across internet sources which do not fall within the criteria specified. The second point, which has also been picked up, is the question of one-third of the overall content, which is a very odd way of trying to approach what I think is a sensible idea—that there should be some de minimis limit on what is considered a commercial provider of pornography, but measuring it in the way that has been suggested. Even with the comments made by the department to the committee, the Government have not taken that trick. I look forward to the Minister’s comments in the hope that he will deal with some of the examples given by the Joint Committee, which seem to raise issues.
On the AV guidance contained within the statutory instrument on that matter, again there are suggestions from both committees. The first point is the rather nuanced one made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that, as the BBFC has not provided an exhaustive list of approved age-verification solutions, the Minister himself should explain more fully the types of arrangement which were deemed adequate. He may find that that is better done by correspondence.
The question raised by several speakers of why the Government have not brought forward the power under Section 19 to impose financial penalties is the focus of my regret Motion, and I shall deal with that now. Both Sub-Committee B and the Joint Committee found this a very strange decision, and others have mentioned it as well. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in full. The argument is very straightforward. Since we have doubts about the whole process and the concerns that exist are about the lack of effective solutions to protect children, one would have thought that the only way in which we can make progress on this is to ensure that the regulator has the effective firepower to get compliance if required to do so. It is interesting that in the documentation, and in the other regulation before us, search engines are fingered. Providers of IT services and providers of advertising can be hit. It is clear from the parallel situation in the gambling world that the support of the payment providers has been absolutely crucial in stamping out illegal practices there. Why have the Government not taken these powers?
On the same issue, but approaching it from the other end, I had problems with the guidance about a non-compulsory, additional, voluntary, non-statutory assessment and certification of age-verification solutions package, which is shown in annexe 5 of the documents before us. I gather that it will be an external agency, probably one of the large auditing firms. I found this very difficult to understand, and would be grateful if the Minister could explain what exactly is going on here. How is it that the ICO, an independent statutory body, is down as having developed this solution in consultation with the BBFC? If that is the case, it seems that its independence has been compromised and I do not see how that can work. In any event, adding another non-mandatory voluntary system seems to be just another way of complicating an already difficult area, as well as raising considerable issues of privacy along the lines raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Is this a wise step to take at the very start of a new venture? The whole question in relation to making a success of this seems to be in doubt. Will the Minister comment?
Finally, during the debate we held on the first order in this clutch of statutory instruments, which confirmed the BBFC as the age-verification regulator, the Minister confirmed that it was not the BBFC’s job to determine whether what is being offered on its sites to adult users is lawful. Can the Minister confirm that, despite the slightly ambiguous wording in some places in the draft guidance, the role of the BBFC is, as stated in the regulations, limited to assessing that a person offering such services,
“has met with requirements of section 14(1) of the Act, to secure that pornographic material is not normally accessible by children and young people under 18”?
In conclusion, I ruminated earlier about whether this was the right approach, given the need to get a proper grip of the situation. Let us put in context the fact that, through the Data Protection Act, we have set up and now brought to fruition a data ethics and innovation commission, which will deal with issues of personal data, privacy and the way in which they interrelate. We have begun to see the new, age-appropriate design approach to the way in which internet service providers have to look after the rights of children who get on to their sites. We have discussed the precautionary principle in relation to internet services more generally.
Finally, I will pose a question to the Minister. We have in front of us top-down, traditional approaches to regulation: setting limits, engaging in the possibility of serious action if the limits are breached, and making sure that—as far as possible—we are able to contain a situation that we think is now unacceptable. However, the only way to get by on this is if the companies themselves are involved, so a duty of care approach might be much more fruitful as a way forward. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for the myriad questions which I will try to answer, in a slightly random order. It is important that we take a bit of time to discuss these; as many noble Lords have said, this is the start of something quite complicated. As I said at the beginning, we ought to bear in mind that we are trying to protect children. In the debates during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill, the Government always acknowledged that they would not have a complete solution, as many noble Lords said and as I mentioned during my opening remarks. We will take on board noble Lords’ comments. Indeed, we have shown—this is a partial answer to the question of why it has taken so long—that we have consulted quite widely; we have discussed the wording of the regulations themselves and the guidelines; and the Secretary of State’s guidelines to the BBFC, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, were available during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill.
We have tried to involve people, which is right given that we are at the beginning of something unique in the world. When we come to talk—I put a certain amount of emphasis on this—about social media and some of the areas that we do not cover in these regulations, we will look at those either in the review to come within 12 to 18 months or in the online harms White Paper. We are still discussing that White Paper and are still open to ideas about what it should include. I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State will make a meeting available to all Peers to discuss what they think should be in the White Paper. We will do that as soon as we can; I will let Peers know about it in due course.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was about to leap to her feet but, to save her doing so, I mention to the Minister that he did not answer the question which she posed, and which was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, about whether he would find time for the excellent two-paragraph Bill which she has in process and which would solve many of these problems.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I had not forgotten that. It would obviously be difficult for me to commit to finding the necessary time but I will take that back to the department. I am not sure that it is currently within the plans of the Chief Whip to bring forward that legislation but I will ask. I understand the point that is being made but, as I said, the issue may well be covered within the review. I am afraid I cannot go any further than that tonight.
As for ancillary service providers, the BBFC and the DDCMS have been engaging with several companies. They have already agreed to act, as doing so is in line with their current terms of service. Therefore, we are optimistic that the voluntary approach will work, and of course that will be reviewed.
The right reverend Prelate, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and others talked about the rationale for choosing one-third of content as the appropriate threshold. During the passage of the Bill, it was established that the focus should be on commercial pornography sites and not on social media. There were good reasons for that but I do not want to revisit them—that is what was decided. The one-third threshold was regarded as proportionate in introducing this new policy where sites make pornography available free of charge. However, websites that market themselves as pornographic will also be required to have age verification, even if less than a third of the content is pornographic.
A third is an arbitrary amount. It was discussed and consulted on, and we think that it is a good place to start on a proportionate basis. We will keep this matter under review and, as I said, it will be one of the obvious things to be taken into account during the 12 to 18-month review. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked how it will be measured. It will be measured by assessing the number of pieces of content rather than the length of individual videos. It will include all pornographic images, videos and individual bits of content, but the point to remember is that the threshold is there so that a decision can be made on whether it is reasonable for the regulator to assume that pornographic content makes up more than one-third of the entire content. This will be done by sampling the various sites.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked about ISP blocking and suggested that everyone would try to game the system to get out of meeting the requirements. That is not what we believe. The BBFC has already engaged with ISPs and we are confident that this will be an effective sanction. The wording in the guidance indicates that the regulator should take a “proportionate approach”. However, we are grateful for the noble Earl’s help. I am sure that he will also help during the review and later in the process when it comes to online harms. I see that he wants to help now.
The Earl of Erroll
It is not the ISPs that I am worried about; it is the websites that will game the system on notification, appeals and so on. That is the bit that will take a long time.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We are confident it will work, but we will have to see when it comes to the review. It is an arbitrary figure that we came to by consensus. I will leave it at that.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about education for children about sex and relationships. We are extending that by making relationships education compulsory in all primary schools. Relationships and sex education is compulsory in all secondary schools and health education compulsory in primary and secondary schools. We understand that it is important. Together with the protection of children we are introducing today, we will have to keep an eye on it. I notice that the DCMS committee in the other place is launching an inquiry into, among other things, the effects of social media on people’s attitudes, including those of children. In a sense, we are all learning as we go, because the technology is developing. It is something we are aware of and keeping an eye on, and we take the point.
As for the big issue of the evening, and why social media sites are not in the scope, that was a decision taken after a debate during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill. We did not want to prevent the benefits of social media sites. But I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that we will consider that in the online harms White Paper. Noble Lords will be welcome to add their thoughts on that very soon—either just before or after Christmas.
As noble Lords have mentioned, there is a memorandum of understanding that clarifies the role of the ICO and what powers it will have instead of the BBFC. The BBFC will administer the voluntary certification scheme that will hold AV services to the highest standards of privacy protection and cybersecurity. We expect the vast majority of AV services to seek accreditation. Furthermore, the BBFC will inform the ICO of any non-certified age-verification solutions it finds, and the ICO will be able to take a look at them. Even if they do not want to apply for voluntary certification, the ICO will make sure they are subject to the full rigours of the GDPR.
I have covered most of the main points; I will look at Hansard and write to noble Lords if I have not covered any. I think it is evident from all the contributions from across the House that this is a complex and novel policy that requires sensitive handling. Having listened to all contributions and heard limited support for the regulations as they stand, albeit with some suggestions for improvement, I remain of the view that these regulations set out clearly what will fall within their scope. I think the guidance from the BBFC sets out clearly how it will assess the requirements of Section 14 and clarifies the BBFC’s approach to payment and ancillary service providers.
We are on the verge of doing something important that has the potential to make a real difference to the experience children have online and to make the internet a safer place for them, so I finish where I began. We are here to protect children, and for that reason I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to withdraw his Motion, or indeed not to move it, and respectfully ask the House to approve the two guidances and the statutory instrument.
Guidance on Age-verification Arrangements
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the draft Guidance laid before the House on 25 October be approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 39th Report, 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2018
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
That this House regrets that the draft Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2018 and the draft Guidance on Age-verification Arrangements do not bring into force section 19 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which would have given the regulator powers to impose a financial penalty on persons who have not complied with their instructions to require that they have in place an age verification system which is fit for purpose and effectively managed so as to ensure that commercial pornographic material online will not normally be accessible by persons under the age of 18.
Guidance on Ancillary Service Providers
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the draft Guidance laid before the House on 25 October be approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 39th Report, 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
Operation Conifer
Lord Lexden
That this House regrets the failure by Her Majesty’s Government to institute an independent inquiry into Operation Conifer conducted by the Wiltshire police into allegations of child sex abuse against Sir Edward Heath; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to make proposals for an independent review of the seven unsubstantiated allegations left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, first, I welcome my noble friend Lady Barran to the Front Bench for what I think is her first debate in that important place.
As a reasonably loyal supporter of the Government, I derive no pleasure whatever from bringing forward this Motion, which levels serious criticism at them. My object is to provide an opportunity for the House to consider the Home Office’s wholly unsatisfactory response to the numerous requests for action made to it over the 14 months since the outcome of Operation Conifer became known.
In answering a series of Questions in this House, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford has made it absolutely clear to your Lordships that the Home Secretary does not believe that he should do anything at all to help put an end to the grave injustice that has been done posthumously to Sir Edward Heath. As a Knight of the Garter, Sir Edward was honoured by inclusion in the highest order of chivalry in our land. In death he has been dishonoured as the result of a deeply flawed police investigation into allegations of child sex abuse made against him.
The now notorious Operation Conifer conducted—misconducted, in the judgment of many people—by Wiltshire Police took two years and cost £1.5 million, of which £1.1 million came out of Home Office funds, placing responsibility for the operation’s very existence firmly with the Government. At its conclusion, seven of a total of 42 allegations made against Sir Edward were left open, neither proved nor disproved. Immense damage has been done to Sir Edward’s reputation. It will remain indelibly stained until the seven allegations have been cleared up.
I know of no one who does not regard this as a flagrant injustice. In today’s debate, we need to be absolutely clear about the Government’s stance. So I ask my noble friend: do the Government accept that Sir Edward Heath is the victim of a terrible injustice, which must be corrected? This is the first of four questions I shall put to the Government this evening.
I shall not dwell in detail on Operation Conifer. I do not think anyone has stepped forward to praise it. It has attracted only criticism—from legal experts, from informed commentators and from all those who believe in fairness, conspicuously represented in all parts of this House. One of the most memorable features of this remarkable police operation was the aggressive, belligerent behaviour of Wiltshire’s then chief constable, Mike Veale. Grave doubt was cast on his impartiality. He became the subject of widespread notoriety when he was quoted in a national newspaper as saying that he was “120 per cent” sure that Sir Edward was guilty. A statement by Wiltshire Police that followed was notable for its careful wording.
It is now clear that Mr Veale is not a man who believes that complete truthfulness is a requirement for the job of chief constable. An inquiry by the Independent Office for Police Conduct censured him in September this year for giving a false account of how he came to destroy his mobile telephone, an instrument widely thought to have contained information damaging to him in relation to Operation Conifer. Yet he remains a chief constable, translated from Wiltshire to distant Cleveland. The processes by which the most senior police officers are appointed in our country can contain puzzling elements. Cleveland’s reputation was not exactly outstanding, even before Mr Veale joined it.
Before the outcome of Operation Conifer was published in October last year, it was already obvious that an independent inquiry would be needed. In June 2017, Mr Angus Macpherson MBE, Wiltshire’s Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner, said that,
“an independent review of the evidence, perhaps by a retired judge, is required”.
Months of uncertainty followed.
In October, Mr Macpherson stated that he hoped that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse would conduct the review that was needed. He added:
“Should the inquiry prove unable or unwilling to take this task on, I will reiterate my earlier call for the government to establish a judge-led review of the evidence”.
Rebuffed by the inquiry, Mr Macpherson was urged on a number of occasions to exercise the power he himself possesses to set up an inquiry. For a time he said he would; then he reneged on that commitment. Since April this year, it has been absolutely clear beyond the slightest doubt that this Conservative commissioner will not do his duty to a deceased Conservative statesman.
So we come to the worst aspect of this most distressing case: the evasion of responsibility. Mr Macpherson plainly deserves strong censure. However, all possibilities of securing redress for Sir Edward are not dashed by his dereliction of duty. In answer to several Oral Questions, my noble friend Lady Williams has stated that the Government have the power to set up the independent inquiry which, they fully accept, ought to be held. That is a crucial point on which the House needs to be absolutely clear. So I ask the Government to confirm that they do indeed have the power to establish an inquiry. That is the second of my four questions to the Government this evening.
Assuming that the answer is in line with the answers that have been given to recent Oral Questions, the Government could readily take action to secure justice for Sir Edward. However, they too evade responsibility. They constantly seek to pass it back to Mr Macpherson, despite his repeated repudiations of it. On 12 November, in answer to an Oral Question from me, my noble friend Lady Williams stated:
“Any review or inquiry, should one be carried out, should be a decision of the PCC”.
A few moments later, she repeated the point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, saying that,
“an inquiry is a matter for the police and crime commissioner”.—[Official Report, 12/11/18; col. 1690.]
A grotesque version of pass the parcel has been played with a deceased statesman’s reputation.
Why on earth should a Member of the Government keep saying things that cannot produce any progress because the commissioner in question will not bestir himself? It can only be because the Government are determined not to exercise their power to institute an inquiry. Confirmation that this is indeed the case has seeped out in very brief comments made by my noble friend Lady Williams. Replying to a debate on 28 June, she told the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, that,
“it would not be appropriate for the Government to step in”.—[Official Report, 28/6/18; col. 281.]
In a Written Answer to me on 29 October, she said:
“The Government does not consider there to be grounds for the Government to intervene”.
Those are no more than bald assertions. They are not explanations of why this Conservative Government have followed a Conservative commissioner in denying justice to a deceased Conservative statesman. So I ask the Government now: what are the reasons—the detailed factors—that have led them to make no use of their power to institute an inquiry? That is the third of my questions this evening.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, I support the Motion to Regret so ably and forcefully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.
I have no complaint about the thoroughness with which Operation Conifer was conducted. It spent two years, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said, and £1.5 million. It interviewed a great many friends and colleagues of Sir Edward Heath, and staff and protection officers who had worked for him, and not a single one thought that Sir Edward Heath had been a child abuser.
They interviewed me for over an hour. I was interviewed by two well-spoken young women—one of them, I think, a police officer; the other was said to be an expert in child abuse, whatever that means—and they were chiefly interested in my duties as principal private secretary to Sir Edward Heath when he was Prime Minister. They spent so long on it that I wondered whether they were hoping that I would say that one of my duties was to procure children for Sir Edward to abuse. If they were expecting that, they were disappointed. I said that I never suspected anything; never even wondered whether he might be a child abuser. In fact, as we know, he was far too cautious and protective of his political and personal reputation to have gone in for anything so risky, even if he was minded that way.
One interviewer said to his interviewee that the investigation was a farce; that the only reason why he was doing it was that he was being paid to do it. So my complaint is about the judgment of the senior officers who initiated and supervised the inquiry. The final responsibility there, of course, must lie with the then chief constable of whom the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has spoken. They permitted themselves to announce that they were investigating Sir Edward Heath by means of a televised statement made outside his house in Salisbury, thus ensuring that from the very beginning the operation was conducted in full public glare. Later there was the episode to which the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred, when the chief constable was quoted as saying that he was 120% sure of Edward Heath’s guilt. If he said anything of the kind he was going grossly beyond any responsibility of a chief constable. The duty of the police is to investigate, to collect evidence and to follow the evidence where it leads, but not to pronounce verdicts. The fact remains that the allegation in the newspaper was never categorically denied.
Their decision to publish a summary report and to hold a press conference at the end of the investigation was an unusual—indeed, I would say unprecedented—course to which they were forced by the fact that the whole investigation had been made public. As we have heard, about 90% of that report was given over to justifying the decision to conduct the investigation and then disposed of 35 of the 42 allegations which had been received, I think all or most of them made after the announcement outside Arundells, and left the seven unresolved allegations to which the noble Lord has referred. Four of them are clearly without foundation, and that is probably true of the other three. One wonders whether seven were left unresolved in order to ensure that Sir Edward Heath remained under suspicion.
Hence the need for an independent inquiry. The police and crime commissioner said that he would welcome an inquiry but not one initiated by him. That was because, he said, this is a national matter. The Home Secretary, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and I went to see him, refused to conduct an inquiry because it is a local matter. I do not know of any way in which one can resolve this dilemma. Is it a national matter or is it a local one? They do not seem to be able to agree.
This is a matter of justice for Sir Edward Heath and it ought not to be left in its present state. I believe that there is probably no one who now thinks that Edward Heath was a child abuser. What is needed is to nail that down. The best way to do that would be to hold an independent inquiry. If that is not to be done, what is needed in order to reinforce the conclusion is an authoritative statement that the information available on this matter, including Operation Conifer, does not satisfy the standards of probability that would justify a decision to prosecute. That may be as far as we can get at this stage because Sir Edward has been dead for 12 years and his reputation has been grossly undermined and clouded by the injustice that has been done to him through Operation Conifer.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to the Dispatch Box for the first time in a debate. We look forward to hearing from her many times in the future. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on the immense tenacity that he has shown on this very important issue which concerns the reputation of one of the statesmen of this country. I did not know Sir Edward Heath; I never met him. The only connection I can possibly cite is that when Sir Alistair Graesser, who some noble Lords may recall, lived in my house before I bought it from him, Sir Edward Heath spent the night there. That is the most I can ever say about my connection with him.
We have to start with Operation Marble. In March 2015, the Wiltshire Police made a referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate a suggestion that a criminal court case may have been dropped in 1994 to protect Sir Edward Heath. It was based upon the recollection of a former senior officer who in August 1992 as a young detective constable had been involved in an undercover operation into the existence of a brothel at an address in Salisbury. It was his job to go to the brothel to demonstrate that a Ms Myra Ling Ling Forde was willing to offer sex for sale. Ms Forde was charged with keeping a brothel and when her case was listed to be heard at Winchester Crown Court in February 1994, the officer in question, who has retired, recalled that he was approached by Ms Forde’s solicitor and told that if the case proceeded, Ms Forde would notify the media that she had been supplying young boys to Sir Edward. That was his recollection, but he had not recorded anything in his notebook or diary. He said that he was reminded of it 21 years later, after watching a television programme about Jimmy Savile. He named other officers who had been involved in the investigation. Two of them were named in his police notebook as having attended court with him but he said that that was not right because he was there on his own. He said he had telephoned his headquarters in Salisbury about this suggestion, but he could not remember who he had spoken to. The trial of Ms Forde did not take place and he had inferred that this was to protect Sir Edward from these allegations. That is the foundation of it; that is where it all sprang from.
All the case papers had been destroyed in the ordinary course of events both in the police station and in the court. The IPCC carried out an investigation. None of the officers in the case or the senior officers in the police station at the time had any recollection of this alleged threat. The defence solicitor and the defence counsel were both interviewed and they too had no recollection of a threat being made to expose Sir Edward by their client. Prosecuting counsel was Nigel Seed, who has in the interim become a Crown Court judge. He wrote a letter to the Times following the commencement of the IPCC investigation in which he stated that there had been three prosecution witnesses in his case. Two of them, who were said to have chaotic lifestyles, had failed to turn up on the morning of the trial and the third was brought to court in custody but refused to come out of the cells to give evidence. Mr Seed did recall that there were members of the press from London hanging about, and he was told that there was media interest in case Ms Forde gave evidence of supplying rent boys to Sir Edward, who lived in Salisbury. Perhaps that is where that detective constable got the idea. But the only evidence left for Mr Seed to prove that the premises were a brothel was a bag of used condoms. He personally had taken the decision to withdraw the prosecution and drop the case. That is exactly what one would expect of a competent counsel who was acting responsibly.
Ms Forde declined to be interviewed by the IPCC in Operation Marble but through her solicitor gave interviews to several reporters for both the national and local press in which she said that Sir Edward was not a client of hers and she had never threatened to expose him. That seems likely because in the following year she was tried and convicted of brothel and prostitution offences and was sent to prison. Even in those circumstances she made no suggestion or threat about exposing Sir Edward. The IPCC concluded that the 1994 case had not been stopped due to any threat of exposing Sir Edward and that it was a complete fabrication. That was the result of Operation Marble. There was no evidence at all that the recollection of the retired police officer after 21 years was correct or true. But on 3 August 2015, as the investigation was just starting, someone in the IPCC decided to issue a press release which contained the following sentence:
“It is alleged that a criminal prosecution was not pursued when a person threatened to expose that Sir Edward Heath may have been involved in offences concerning children”.
At no point until the IPCC press statement had Sir Edward Heath’s name been mentioned in anything.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is an historian. He deployed his grasp of detail to great effect, aiming for justice for a British statesman of considerable note. Surely it should be so.
I recollect in June 1970 the first entry of Edward Heath as Prime Minister into the Chamber of the House of Commons, to great acclamation. He wore a blue cornflower in his buttonhole and sported a mahogany tan of great depth. My side of the House was downcast and still in shock. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred to statesmanship. Very soon after that day—not much more than a year—Edward Heath proposed one of the greatest events in Britain’s history outside of war: entry into Europe. Of course, there are the tumultuous events of this week concerning our exit from it, but that is something else.
Edward Heath was greatly instrumental in our entry into Europe, aided by his Chief Whip, Francis Pym. I recall the issue being addressed by James Callaghan on that evening in the Chamber. He was making the last Opposition speech and in a crowded House, I spied Chief Whip Francis Pym push his way through the rugby scrum at the Bar of the House and make his way across that space to whisper in the then Prime Minister’s ear that the votes were there. That was a historic moment for the House of Commons, and it was historic statesmanship by Edward Heath.
I decided to make my brief intervention on the basis that I owe him some gratitude. For many years, I was an advocate in another place for a community that had a huge steelworks with some 14,000 employees. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr Peter Walker, said the steel-making in my constituency—in my homeland—was to end. That was an absolutely catastrophic proposal. As a young Member, I had to set about organising campaigns against that proposal. I do not need to remind your Lordships’ House of the consequences of mass unemployment. I had the wit to ask the Prime Minister’s Private Secretary if the Prime Minister would see me, along with a deputation. The answer was yes. He gave me some two hours in the Cabinet room. I sat opposite the Prime Minister—and a picture of Walpole, the first Prime Minister. Either side of me were humble men, steelworkers, and there was the British Prime Minister. He had been a Minister for the north, I think, and, as a lieutenant-colonel, had commanded the artillery and got to know men of that kind. I was astounded by what I saw and heard of Edward Heath, compared to his national image: he showed courtesy, patience, consideration and encouragement. Unusually for a man such as that, he called for cups of tea for my people. This was perhaps unique—Edward Heath looking after his visitors; he was that sort of man. I place that on the record. As a young Member, I had reason to get that deputation into Downing Street.
As I left, he told me I had done very well. Astoundingly, he then said, “How is your father?” My father had been a full-time employee of the British Labour Party at the time of the 1950 general election. The sitting Member was of my side, but the candidate was an unknown called Edward Heath, who was at that time news editor of the Church Times. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, remembers. He may even have been in the Chamber in June 1970—I am not sure. My father subjected Edward Heath to three re-counts. The majority was pretty well the same size as the number of votes the Communist candidate obtained—three figures. This was in 1950, and Edward Heath went on to be Prime Minister.
Given the way a reputation might be traduced and dishonoured, and in the knowledge that Edward Heath was a British Prime Minister of great statesmanship, I felt I ought to acknowledge my debt of gratitude. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and the wise and noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, will gain justice some time soon.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly that I had the honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, as the chairman of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation. I am delighted with the speech of my former opposite number in the other place, the noble Lord, Lord Jones.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lexden, not only on making possible this important debate, and eloquently opening it, but on his dogged pursuit of justice and common sense in the wake of the highly unsatisfactory Operation Conifer. I very much welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who set out the origins of this nonsense and how it emerged so clearly.
Sir Edward Heath’s reputation matters to so many of us, as we have already heard. This is not only because he obtained the highest office in British politics. It is an open secret that politicians can be very exercised by the judgment of posterity. I recall that, in Shakespeare’s “Othello”, when Cassio is discredited, he cries out:
“Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial”.
The arch-manipulator, Iago, who has personally and insidiously orchestrated the ruin of Cassio’s reputation, responds:
“Reputation is an idle and most false imposition: oft got without merit, and lost without deserving”.
Because of a number of unproven accusations against him, and because of the apparent credulousness of Wiltshire Police, Sir Edward Heath’s reputation—his good name—was, for a time, in acute danger of being lost for ever, without deserving. I think this is such an important debate.
I believe Ted’s name has now been, to all intents and purposes, cleared, but that is no thanks to anyone associated with Wiltshire Police. Spurred on by frankly bizarre guidance from the then Director of Public Prosecutions, that force treated pathetic fantasies and deliberate, knowing lies as the truthful accounts of “victims”. Ted could not possibly defend himself against this web of deceit. Fortunately, others can and have defended themselves: Sir Cliff Richard; Paul Gambaccini; Lord Bramall, a hero who served his country nobly; and the late Leon Brittan, who could—and should—have been informed that the cases against him had been exposed as a tissue of lies before he died, but was not.
Ted Heath, who served this country with distinction in peace and in war, is now the real victim. Those who were complicit in creating and sustaining the slur against him must now realise they have lost, comprehensively. None the less, because he is dead, Ted is denied complete justice. He has had no opportunity to defend himself.
I have always admired what I have thought of as the traditional approach to policing, which dates back to Sir Robert Peel: a healthy balance between scepticism and credulity and an approach to investigation that is methodical, thorough, calm, well mannered and, above all else, always led by evidence. When police officers decide they are on some sort of crusade, they overstep a very dangerous line. Of course, the police enjoy operational independence—rightly so—but that cannot and must not mean they are not accountable for their actions.
If we are indeed to sanction full-scale investigations into allegations against deceased persons, we owe it to them to abide by the principle of habeas corpus; as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded us, this is the presumption of innocence, unless and until guilt can be established. That stretches back to Magna Carta and 1215. The officers in charge of Operation Conifer say that they would have investigated and interviewed Sir Edward Heath about those six or seven accusations. The final statement made in a lavishly expensive police operation, although no one now believes it, must have left a stain, a smell, a hint that all was not well—a possible imputation of guilt. Sadly, we know very little about the seven accusations. That makes it very difficult—almost impossible—for us to subject them to any sort of rigorous examination. I believe that three have already been straightforwardly disproven, but all seven should and could be rigorously scrutinised.
It should be up to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider all the evidence—if indeed there is any evidence, rather than accusations—very much as it would were the accused person alive. The CPS is well versed in knowing the difference between an accusation and evidence. Our conclusion is that a retired judge could easily consider both a prosecution and a defence case. I know many people who would gladly prepare the defence case, but I do not for one moment believe that the CPS would take any of these accusations seriously.
In welcoming my noble friend to the Front Bench, I hope she might disregard what is no doubt the very strong advice that she is receiving from within the Home Office that this move would set an unfortunate precedent. What is unfortunate about asking a retired judge to scrutinise these accusations properly?
It is a well-established rule of this great House to give voice to those who have no voice. In life, Sir Edward Heath had a very distinctive voice and, as we all have cause to remember, he was never afraid to use it. Thanks to his friends and former colleagues, here and elsewhere, although his voice is now stilled, his name has been comprehensively cleared. Other deceased individuals against whom false accusations are made may not be so lucky. We owe it to all of them, as well as to the genuine victims of crime, to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done. That can be now be done only by a proper independent judicial inquiry into these accusations. Ted Heath’s name has been cleared, but it has set an unfortunate precedent, which we must address.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. He has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of someone whom I believe was his friend. The House should also express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who gave us an excellent analytical examination of the past and brought the House’s attention to matters of which many of us were previously unaware.
Once again, we are cantering around a course of myth, hearsay and rumour. I have been raising this issue in this House for more than two and half years and we have got absolutely nowhere. Nothing has happened, although I sense a change in opinion in this House towards the events alleged, whereby basically no one now believes them. It is not that I think that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has been unsympathetic. I think she is caught in the impasse of inexplicable fear at the top of government. There is no credible evidence whatever that a former Prime Minister was involved in child abuse or any other sexual abuse.
The issue is simple: who in authority will have the guts to stand up and say, “We are witnessing a quasi-judicial, historic miscarriage of justice without there ever being a trial”? That is what is so important. That is what a review would be all about. We want the historical record to be corrected in the court of international public opinion.
The Government have taken the position set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who said:
“The police are operationally independent of government”.
That has been referred to before. She went on:
“The Government would step in only where all other avenues had been exhausted”.—[Official Report, 11/10/18; col. 178.]
We are at that point. All other avenues have been exhausted. The proof of that is set out in the 2018 report of the Wiltshire Police commissioner, who states:
“It remains my hope and expectation that IICSA will have something to say on the strength or otherwise of any evidence against Sir Edward Heath”.
He goes on:
“Should IICSA maintain that position”—
of failing to act—
“the Home Secretary should, in my view, order a separate public inquiry with the necessary powers and the remit to establish the facts”.
He further states:
“Wiltshire has more than met its national responsibilities, and I will not commission any further work in relation to Operation Conifer”.
He goes on to refer to his limited resources.
My problem with all that is that, while I understand the resource argument at the local level, I hesitate over the prospect of an IICSA finding of fact when the accused is dead. If a man is dead, there can be no finding of fact because there is no defence. IICSA’s operations are based on hearings. There is no one to hear, apart from the accusers, which takes us right back to the Janner case. Indeed, I note that in all the cases where accusations have been levelled against individuals who are still alive, we have had either apologies or mealy-mouthed statements withdrawing accusations. In other words, attack the dead who cannot respond and run scared of the living for fear of legal action.
The Wiltshire Police commissioner says that the Government should do something, and they should. Sir Edward Heath was not a Wiltshire Council leader; he was a Prime Minister with an international reputation. We either give Wiltshire all the money it needs—not part of the money, as happened before—to draw up the Conifer review, or the Government carry out a judge-led review of the evidence. Anyhow, it should not cost much. There is very little evidence, just hearsay and untruths. The Nick case will prove that.
The powers that be have allowed this whole debate about sexual abuse to become bogged down in political correctness. We are entering a fantasy world where anyone without principle can make a claim of sexual abuse against any other person in the knowledge that there is a presumption that the accuser is to be believed. The whole process is being greatly aided by the sexual offences compensation scheme, otherwise known as the criminal injuries compensation scheme, with legal expenses funded by the taxpayer while the scheme is undermining the credibility of legitimate claimants. All you now need is a vivid imagination, a preparedness to lie and the ability to make the accusation seem realistic by drawing on other cases already on the public record that give credence to your accusation and you are on your way to a windfall.
I give your Lordships an example. Let us take the Janner case. Last week, IICSA informed me of a further accusation against Janner. It came after the collapse of the civil claims against the Janner estate when an unidentified man claimed that,
“he was raped at Dolphin Square”—
noble Lords will recall Dolphin Square—
“whilst in the care of social services by a person he subsequently believes to be Janner”.
That is from paragraph 7 of Professor Jay’s letter of determination, dated 2 May 2018. Until then there had been no claim by anyone, ever, that Janner was linked to the infamously false Dolphin Square allegations. It is a patent lie, yet this individual, referred to as F54 in the IICSA inquiry, has been granted core participation status in the Janner strand, entitling him to legal representation by solicitors and counsel at huge cost to the taxpayer, running into tens of thousands of pounds. His lawyers will be able to charge for preparatory work leading up to proceedings and representation at a three-week hearing fixed for February 2020. I object, on behalf of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom: it is an outrage and it further affects the credibility of the IICSA inquiry.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for introducing this debate and for everything he has said—with which I agree absolutely and entirely—so forcefully and rightly. What is significant about the debate is that there is a unanimity of view in this House, not only about the injustice but why it needs to be put right, coming from all parts of the Chamber, and I am very glad about that.
I had a close connection for many years with Ted Heath so I must declare an interest. In 1959, I came down from the University of St Andrews, where I had done an economics degree, to King’s College London to do a law degree, and I therefore had the summer recess free. Ted Heath was president of the Federation of University Conservative and Unionist Associations—FUCUA, as it was politely known—and I was the chairman that year. He knew I was free so I got a telephone call in Scotland asking me if I would come down to Bexley and, as he put it, “run his ladies” during the election campaign because he was away canvassing and speaking at Central Office and doing all sorts of things. I was delighted to do that.
One of the ladies, who was his secretary at the time, I got to know rather well as she came down quite often from his office in London to campaign with me. One of the great joys of that campaign was that that secretary became my wife. I have always been delighted to say that that is how it started. Ted became godfather to one of our children, so that is my personal interest to declare.
More particularly, I was head of his office when he was leader of the Conservative Party from 1962 to 1965, and I travelled everywhere with him—all over the UK, as well as internationally—on many weekends, as well as working in his parliamentary office, very often very late at night when Parliament was sitting, so I had a very close observation of and relationship with him. In all those years, I never saw the slightest hint of any of the accusations that have been made against him.
As far as I know, there never has been any shred of evidence for the innuendos and accusations. No one has come forward so far—and I do not believe they will in the future—with a single bit of proof. Now at last the identity of Nick—the apparent source of most, if not all, of these latest innuendos—has been revealed. As far as we can judge, he has been revealed as the source of accusations about not only Ted Heath but many others, including other prominent figures. If this is the case, it is astonishing that he was allowed to get away with it for so long—anonymously, while those against whom the claims were made received the full glare of incredibly one-sided publicity.
These are serious matters, as the Chamber has recognised tonight. They go beyond the issue of Ted Heath, but that brings them out dramatically. People who have given a lifetime of public service have had their reputation substantially traduced, while the source, obviously known to the police, was allowed to get away scot free—or, at the very least, to remain anonymous—for so long that the public have been unable to judge whether or not the accusations had any basis of truth.
The Daily Telegraph has reported that a review by a retired High Court judge has highlighted more than 40 mistakes that have been made by some police forces. It is high time that we are given more information about all these accusations and how they are being dealt with, so that people such as Ted Heath, who have given a lifetime of public service and made a remarkable contribution to our nation and its history, have these accusations clearly dealt with once and for all, and their reputations properly restored.
I strongly support this Motion and all that has been said in the Chamber so far, and I thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for bringing this issue so forcefully to the House. I warmly urge the Front Bench to take this away and realise that this is the unanimous feeling of the House, which we all feel deeply and strongly, and that it is time that it is put right.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lexden, who, as others have said, has been indefatigable in this cause, as indeed have many other Members of the House. I welcome to the Front Bench my noble friend Lady Barran. This is her first debate.
The question which concerns us this evening is: how did we allow the reputation of a former Prime Minister to be so damaged by unsubstantiated allegations, lies, fantasies, false statements, possible perjury and the shamefully prejudicial language of a chief constable? This has happened step by step: allegations are made, so a police officer, who should know better, deliberately positions himself outside the home of Edward Heath, in front of the television cameras, and calls upon victims—that was the word he used, not complainants—to come forward. We then have, as has been said, the then chief constable of Wiltshire, Mike Veale, being quoted as saying he was 120% sure of Edward Heath’s guilt. The man formerly known as Nick—now named as Carl Beech—is finally charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice.
We have witnessed a saga of fiction created by fantasies, aided and abetted by gullible police officers, and shockingly given credence by an overzealous chief constable. It is a catalogue of shame. It besmirched the reputation of a former Prime Minister, and throughout, the Government stood idly by. There has been debate after debate in this House, question after question, but from this Government—a Conservative Government— no help or support at all. It is, to put it at its mildest, deeply disappointing.
The way that Operation Conifer was managed, or rather, mismanaged, and looking at how other investigations have damaged other people’s reputations—Lord Bramall, Cliff Richard, the late Lord Brittan—raises very serious questions which cause grave disquiet. There is the question of whether and when the police should investigate allegations made against a deceased person. How clear is the guidance as to the circumstances which would justify such investigations? When are they necessary or prudent? When would they be fruitless or, worse still, needlessly damaging to the reputation of a deceased person who cannot defend themselves?
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I too have to declare an interest: it is through Ted Heath that I met and married my wife. She worked for him and knew him extremely well. She too was interviewed in the course of this inquiry. The questions that were asked showed specifically what nonsense it was. Did she know of occasions in which young men came secretly to 10 Downing Street? Anyone who knows anything about the way in which a Prime Minister operates and is protected—even in those days—would know what a ridiculous question that was in the first place. I could go through many of them, but I want first to say that although I welcome my noble friend Lady Barran to the Front Bench, I think she has been ill-done-by in being asked to do this, because this is a situation in which the real guilt is with the Government, who have failed to take action, and that is a scandal. May I dare to suggest what would have happened if a Conservative Government had failed to do this about a Labour Prime Minister? Or a Labour Government had failed to take action about a Conservative Prime Minister?
It is a scandal because the Government have failed to understand what their duty is and have shuffled it off to a local area, which knows perfectly well that it would have to pay the cost—the very considerable cost, if it did it properly—and which itself had to be subsidised for the original inquiry that took place under Operation Conifer. The Home Office knows that, and knows perfectly well that only the Government could ensure that there was the kind of inquiry of a national sort which is necessary on this occasion. So why will the Government not do it? They should do so, first, out of loyalty to Britain and to a Prime Minister, leave alone their politics. But secondly, they need to do so because of the actions of the police.
I am a great defender of the police but the Wiltshire Police, and Mr Veale in particular, have let down all the police forces of this country. People say that he went off to Cleveland but just remember that he left at the point at which he was not reappointed, and when it became clear that he might well not be reappointed. He went to Cleveland and has since been found guilty of what was clearly straight lying, which he has admitted. We need to recover the reputation of the police, and the only way to do so is to make sure that they know that they too are subject to the kind of inquiry which we should have here. The tendency to be sceptical about our willingness to look into the misdoings of the police will otherwise be justified.
The third reason why this inquiry must take place is because of all of us. This has happened to Ted Heath but I say to my noble friend the Minister: it could happen to you. It could happen to any of us because it is a tissue of lies, invented either by the malevolent or by the fundamentally ill. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, pointed out, any of us who have dealt with these cases before—the sort of people I had to talk to when we were trying to recover the reputation of Lord Brittan—will have realised that we were dealing with some of the saddest people there were. They had become totally convinced that things had happened which could not have happened, because that was not possible.
I say to my noble friend that there is a very important lesson here. I have no doubt that she has a document in front of her. I could almost have written it myself but I will restrain myself. She will read from that but I want her to say also that this House will not rest. If the Government want to go on with this farce, then again and again we will bring it here until they accept that they have a duty—moral, political and, frankly, out of decent humanity—to take this case up and reveal the truth.
I am not going to argue about whether Ted Heath was in any way guilty; I think it is so obvious that he was not, but that is not what this argument is about. In a sense, we have spent too much time talking about the impossibility of the case in the first place. What we need to do is to say that if we believe in justice, it is justice not just for the poorest or for those who cannot defend themselves but justice for all—justice for the reputation of a man who was our Prime Minister.
Frankly, I ask my noble friend not to tell us that it is an unfortunate precedent or that it is inappropriate, because we are not having it any more. We are going to go on, as my noble friend Lord Lexden has led us again tonight, until the Government accept that it is their duty to all of us to investigate this properly and not to allow the reputation of a great man to be besmirched because they are frightened of the fall out—for there can be no other reason.
I say this to my noble friend: one thing that she could do tonight to is give us a real reason. If she cannot, I hope she will go back, as my noble friend suggested, and say to the Home Secretary that we cannot do this again. We cannot manage it again. The House will not have it again. The Government have got to change their mind.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, first, I welcome my noble friend to the Dispatch Box and express my sympathy. She will never have a more difficult speech to make or case to defend.
I have not spoken on this matter before, but I have followed what has been said by others on previous occasions and admire the persistence of my noble friend Lord Lexden, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Armstrong and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others. I listened carefully to the detail which has been spelled out today and on previous occasions on all this and I shall not repeat it or add to it. I had hoped that, given the strength of the case that was made on previous occasions, this would all have been put right—but it has not been and it will not be until there is an inquiry. So I add my words in calling for an inquiry.
I worked for Ted Heath when he was the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1965. As a young chartered accountant interested in politics, I was hired by the Conservative Research Department—rather to my surprise and its too, I think—and found myself working night and day to assist him and the team of MPs that he had assembled to debate the extensive tax reforms of the 1965 Finance Bill. It turned out to be the start of my political career.
Sir Edward had a distinguished record, first as a soldier in World War II, then as an MP for more than 50 years and a Minister in successive Governments under four Prime Ministers, and then of course as Prime Minister himself. He earned the right, even above the right of ordinary citizens, not to be unfairly traduced after his death by the police and by those responsible for law and order—but that is what has happened, as was spelled out again today.
The police were of course right to investigate the accusations in the first place—nobody is disputing that, I think—but it is not justice to give up and leave the seven accusations hanging in the air at this stage for a person of his record, or indeed for any other person. We need an investigation, an inquiry, to clear the names of those involved, particularly Sir Edward. But I also think that my noble friend Lord Deben was right that we need an investigation for the sake of the police and their reputation for fairness and straight dealing. That should be important to the Home Office as well as to the police themselves. The way that the particular policemen involved behaved in this case has been set out by others. It left a scar on the reputation of the Wiltshire Police in particular and, by extension, the police as a whole. That should concern even those who do not care about the reputation of the individuals accused. We need to be reassured that the behaviour in this case was an aberration that will not be repeated in other cases.
The police and crime commissioner has failed to use his powers—although he seemed to be about to at one point—perhaps because of the reputation that my noble friend suggested, and the police themselves do not seem prepared to salvage their reputation, so the Home Office, the Government, must set up an inquiry—and the sooner, the better. I add my voice to those calling for a proper resolution to the outstanding accusations.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for his doggedness in persisting with this, and the other Members of the House who have also done so.
I come at this from something of a different angle. We are dealing with an extremely difficult issue as a society. The Church of England knows something about it—but so do we all. This is really difficult stuff. It would not be enough to have an inquiry into the seven unresolved and said to be unsubstantiated allegations. It is about what we have learned from our experience, about good practice, about what has gone wrong and about how we develop things for the future.
The persistence in asking for a review has much more in it, because it is not right to elide from one operation to another in the way that has happened in this debate, where I think some untruths have been spoken—I am sure unintentionally. We are collecting this stuff together and we need forensically to analyse what is going on in these different cases.
There is an opportunity to learn from Operation Conifer for the good of the country—for the good of all of us. Some important principles are at stake. Salisbury has the best of the earliest copies of Magna Carta. No one is above the law. That is a really important principle for us. Victims must have the confidence in every circumstance to make complaints which are then properly investigated by the police.
We do not know the evidence in relation to the 42 allegations, of which seven remain allegations that would have been investigated under caution, because they have not been published. They were viewed by an independent scrutiny panel. That gives us some assurance that there must be something there—but we do not know.
What is to be made of this? There is clearly a problem about the reputation of Sir Edward Heath. That point has been made repeatedly in the House and elsewhere and put well tonight. I am grateful to those who, in the latter stages of the debate, spoke about the reputation of the Wiltshire Police. That matters to me a great deal. It does not help, without evidence, simply to make allegations which do not or will not necessarily stand up. Wiltshire Police’s reputation also needs reviewing to get this on to a basis where we can have confidence in one another.
Had Sir Edward still been alive, he would have been interviewed. He is not. The matter would have had to have been decided in a court of law. It cannot be. Would that the Church of England had learned from that. When the Operation Conifer report was published, I felt that that was a helpful principle to establish. But there will be more lessons to learn from it—for both Sir Edward’s reputation and for Wiltshire Police, but also for the country at large. In the very difficult process that we are going through, an independent, probably judicial, review would be very helpful to establish what lessons can be learned from this. This is not a matter to be financed just from Wiltshire: the police and crime commissioner has made that clear. This investigation was conducted on behalf of 14 forces. Therefore, it is appropriate to put this as a problem to the Government and to say that a review needs to be undertaken for the good of all.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for securing today’s debate. I also welcome the Minister to her place on the Front Bench—and I accompany that with a note of sympathy. One or two noble Lords have asked the Minister to deviate from her brief tonight. I hope they realise that that can be a seriously career-limiting activity.
I will be brief. Your Lordships’ House is familiar with the context and details of this issue, as it has been raised a number of times in Oral Questions and debates over recent months. It is a complex area of huge significance to the operation of our criminal justice system, and to our efforts to ensure justice and to prevent and protect against serious crimes of sexual abuse. Victims who come forward—those accused, and the public—must be able to have confidence in our police forces to run just and professional investigations into allegations of this nature. It must be stated that it is right and proper for allegations against a prominent public figure to be investigated, as they would be for a person without such standing. With those investigations, though, comes an increased obligation to be responsible about what information is put into the public domain.
This debate has provided many questions for the Minister regarding noble Lords’ concerns over how the operation was managed, the role of the local PCC, and what consideration was given to the establishment and funding of an independent inquiry into Operation Conifer. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on these issues.
Following Operation Midland, Sir Richard Henriques published his findings on police handling of that investigation, including analysis of some serious failures. At the time we said that the details of the report should be used to strengthen police procedures for both the investigation and the treatment of suspects—but, crucially, that changes must not be used to downgrade the seriousness of allegations or to make it harder for victims to report a crime. With that in mind, I have two questions for the Minister.
First, can she tell the House whether she is aware of any work to spread best practice between police forces on their operational handling of investigations of this nature, and to prevent the repetition of mistakes such as those that occurred in Operation Midland? Secondly, even while we debate the important issue of access to justice for a person who is accused, we must also keep in our sights the injustices that are faced daily by victims of these crimes. Rape and abuse are woefully underreported and have low conviction rates. The most recent Crime Survey for England and Wales estimated that 83% of people who had been the victim of a sexual offence did not report their experience to the police. Will the Minister update the House on what work is being done to encourage the reporting of these offences, and to ensure that police officers are adequately trained to respond to a victim who discloses this kind of crime?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Lexden for securing this important debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their warm welcome to me at the Dispatch Box. It is a great honour to be standing here, responding for the Government on this very important topic, and I will do my best to respond to the points raised.
In preparing for this speech, I read the various debates and questions on this topic over the past three years; indeed, I have listened to several exchanges since I joined your Lordships’ House in July. I have been struck by the strength of feeling about the damage done to Sir Edward’s reputation by Operation Conifer—and that strength of feeling was echoed again, very forcefully, by your Lordships tonight. The Government remain genuinely sympathetic to the concerns raised by noble Lords but have made their position clear on several occasions.
As noble Lords know, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently gave his own careful consideration to this matter and wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, on 10 October. He has considered the case both for a Government-commissioned inquiry into Operation Conifer and for a review of the seven remaining allegations. To answer my noble friend Lord Lexden’s question about whether there is anything in law to prevent the Government from commissioning an independent inquiry, I refer to the response of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford on 11 October. In it she confirmed that, while there is nothing to prevent the Government from doing so, they would need clear justification.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has recognised the strength of feeling on this matter and the issues it raises, but has also thought carefully about the proper role of government. It remains his view that the handling of this is properly a matter for the local police and crime commissioner and that it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to persuade him how to go about it.
Sir Richard Henriques’ review of the Metropolitan Police’s handling of allegations against persons of public prominence, which has been referred to in this context, was of course commissioned by the then Commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. It remains the case, therefore, that the Government have no plans to launch an inquiry into Operation Conifer or the seven outstanding allegations. A number of noble Lords have mentioned our inability to hear the voice of Sir Edward in response to these allegations—something on which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary also focused in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. He wrote that:
“the problem that the police encountered was their inability to interview Sir Edward himself in order to secure his account of events. I have every sympathy, but that problem will of course remain and it is not clear to what extent a further review of the existing evidence by a judge or retired prosecutor would resolve this”.
I am genuinely sorry to give a reply which I know will disappoint some noble Lords, but it is important to bear in mind the degree of scrutiny to which Operation Conifer has already been subject. This has included Wiltshire Police’s own independent scrutiny panel, two reviews by Operation Hydrant, a review of the costs of the operation by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct into specific complaints about the then chief constable. The findings of Operation Conifer were then made public in the Summary Closure Report published in October 2017.
It is clearly disappointing that the investigation was unable to resolve the position in respect of seven of the allegations. I fully understand why this is of concern—noble Lords have put it most eloquently this evening. A man who has served this country at the highest level has had his reputation tarnished and he is powerless to defend himself. However, as I have already mentioned, the missing piece of the jigsaw is Sir Edward’s side of the story. Sadly, that is lost to us now and it is not clear that a further review would take us any further forward. However, I reiterate what my noble friend Lady Williams has emphasised so often in this House: that the Summary Closure Report makes it clear that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the conclusion that Sir Edward would have been interviewed under caution.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Baroness has long professional experience in this area. How does she think we can move forward, protecting the reputation of people who have been falsely accused? Does she have a personal view on that?
Baroness Barran
I do not have a personal view on that but I thank the noble Lord for his question. In a moment I will comment on some of the ways in which we feel that progress can be made in this area.
In the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in an earlier debate on this subject, the police face an “unenviable and difficult task”, because they have a responsibility towards the accused as well as the victims. My noble friend Lord Lexden referred in the same debate to the research led by Professor Carolyn Hoyle and colleagues at Oxford University into the impact of false allegations of sexual abuse on those accused, particularly the fear of further allegations. Professor Hoyle rightly points out that this fear of further allegations is not true of other crimes. I know that pre-charge anonymity for suspects is of concern to noble Lords and has been raised by a number of speakers in this debate.
The release of suspects’ names to the media is addressed in the authorised professional practice guidance on media relations issued by the College of Policing. This makes it clear that the police will not name those arrested or suspected of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose for doing so. Naming an arrested person before charge should be authorised by a chief officer, and the Crown Prosecution Service should be consulted. In May 2018, the college updated this guidance to make clear that this also applies where allegations are made against deceased persons. This seems to strike a sensible balance, but it is important that we get this right. The previous Home Secretary therefore asked Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to carry out a short, targeted review of police adherence to the guidance on media relations, looking in particular at pre-charge anonymity. The inspectorate is undertaking a scoping study this financial year to consider where inspection activity might best be focused. In addition, the College of Policing is consulting on this issue with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Police Federation.
The Government are genuinely trying to ensure that lessons are learned from the experience of operating this guidance. I hope this will go some way to reassuring my noble friend Lord Sherbourne, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and others who mentioned this.
The Government’s position on Operation Conifer remains as set out in the letter that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary sent to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, in October. The letter has been placed in the Lords Library. I thank all noble Lords for the careful consideration they have given to this matter. I recognise that the inconclusive nature of the investigation’s findings are unsatisfactory for everyone. I will make sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gets a copy of the Hansard containing this debate.
I understand that there will be disappointment, especially among the many noble Lords who knew and worked with Sir Edward, but I repeat what I said earlier in my speech: no inference of Sir Edward’s guilt should be drawn from the conclusions of Operation Conifer. It is also absolutely clear that those noble Lords who knew Sir Edward well do not have any doubt about his innocence. I share the view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that the cloud of suspicion hanging over Sir Edward could be removed only if it were possible to interview him personally, something that, sadly, can no longer happen.
The response to my noble friend Lord Lexden’s final question, sadly, is no. We remain of the view that this is a matter for the local police and crime commissioner to handle, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to persuade him how to go about this.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, I perform the traditional duty of thanking all participants in this debate with particular strength and great sincerity. Like many others, I commiserate with my noble friend who had the task of replying to this debate. She will realise at once that she leaves the House entirely and completely dissatisfied.
Across the House, we have been of one accord, united in a common purpose and determined to see justice done in this exceptionally important case, which has quite rightly attracted widespread public attention. A Conservative statesman has been traduced. We must have the truth, and we will get it.
I asked the Government four specific detailed questions about the conduct of Operation Conifer, its dire consequences and the need for an inquiry. What has been said in reply to this debate does not suffice by way of answer. I trust that I will have full answers to all four questions and that they will be sent as soon as possible to all those who have taken part in this debate and placed in the Library of the House. The most important of the four, as I stressed, was the last, on the seven unsubstantiated allegations. They simply must be examined and cleared up.
Those who care about the reputation of Ted Heath today; those who write and lecture today, this generation and the generations to come, as historians—and I speak as an historian—must have the full, definitive facts. We must have an accurate historical record.
Those who have debated this Motion have made clear their absolute support for it. Among those who have spoken, the Contents have had it without a single Not-Content—and I am content with that clear moral victory this evening in this important debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.