House of Commons
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 3 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, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is vital that passengers feel confident that they are buying the most appropriate ticket for their journey, which was why we committed in our manifesto to review rail ticketing, removing complexity and perverse pricing. The rail review will take a longer-term look at how the railway can support a fares system that delivers value for money for both passengers and taxpayers.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Last April, the then rail Minister wrote to me to say that he was conducting a review of fare simplification on the Brighton main line. In oral questions that month, he said that the review would be completed “rapidly”. Only the context of this Government’s handling of rail fares could the best part of a year be called rapid. When will that review be completed and when will fares be simplified on the Brighton main line?
Andrew Jones
My predecessor undertook to review the matter and remove some of the anomalies, and that work has already started, including in the fare review we saw earlier this year and the big piece of work reviewing how pay-as-you-go can be extended across the south-east. There has been a piecemeal approach where it has gone into Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and parts of Surrey, and we are taking a strategic approach to it and that will be happening in the first half of this year.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Devolution to Greater Manchester offers enormous opportunities to simplify rail fares across the area. What has so far been achieved in that regard, and what opportunities have been taken to broaden out the ease of using different modes of public transport across Greater Manchester on a single ticket?
Andrew Jones
That is very much a question for the Williams review of devolution structures in our transport sector. The principle of my hon. Friend’s question, which is about making things more convenient for passengers through smart ticketing, is absolutely right. If we make things easier for passengers, they will be more likely to use the services. That is a key question for the Williams review, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend’s question is fed through to Mr Williams.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Fares have gone up everywhere, including for Hull Trains, which has been particularly difficult for residents of Hull to swallow because the reliability of the trains has been so poor. I will offer the Minister a gift this morning—an opportunity to be a hero cost-free. I would like him to contact First Group and put extreme pressure on it to give Hull Trains a new train six months earlier than promised. If he can do that, it will improve reliability—and I am not even asking him for any more money.
Andrew Jones
That is quite unusual, to be honest, as we have a lot of requests for money. I will look into what the hon. Lady says and get back to her.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The UK Government and European Commission have agreed in principle that the two sides should negotiate a comprehensive air transport agreement. The Department is working closely with the aviation sector to ensure its requirements are factored into negotiations. The Department’s aviation technical notices and the European Commission’s published plans for aviation contingency preparations, alongside proposed EU regulations published on 19 December, clearly demonstrate that, in a no-deal scenario, both sides are committed to maintaining aviation connectivity.
Chris Grayling
I think that the aviation sector will continue to grow and develop as it has in recent years. We will continue to have connections across Europe, as we do at the moment, and, of course, with the plans for the expansion of Heathrow airport, there will be a real opportunity for apprenticeships in the sector and to open up new routes around the world, for example to emerging markets in Asia. I see the next 10 years as ones of great opportunity for the aviation sector.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The EU’s contingency arrangements are welcome, but what estimate has the Secretary of State made of the prospects for airports such as Bournemouth that want to increase their routes to Europe over the next year?
Chris Grayling
The European Union has said that it wants to keep flights at the current levels, and I suspect that they will find that that is not a universally held view among member states.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State can chew gum and walk at the same time, so while he is dealing with future viability with our leaving the EU, will he also deal with the current crisis over drones affecting airports? May I give him the opportunity to answer the questions that he did not answer earlier in the week? Were contingency plans agreed with the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to protect our airports from drone incidents and others, and if not, why not? Were such plans not activated in time because of dithering? Why did they not work? Was that the fault of the Secretary of State’s Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office or, indeed, the Cabinet Office?
Mr Speaker
Order. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman’s question with great interest. It was tangential to the substantive question, and I just say gently to him that I had been thinking of offering him an Adjournment debate on the matter, until I realised that he had, in fact, just conducted one.
Chris Grayling
Indeed he has, Mr Speaker.
I would simply remind the right hon. Gentleman of two factors. First, the disruptive attack at Gatwick was unprecedented anywhere in the world, and as a result we have been approached by airports around the world to learn more about how we tackled that. Secondly, as I have said, I am not able to discuss in the House the nature of the technology used for security reasons, but when a similar issue arose at Heathrow earlier this week, the response was very rapid indeed.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that regional air connectivity within the UK is a priority as we leave the EU? Can he remind operators such as British Airways that reducing routes from Aberdeen International airport in my constituency disrupts business and leisure travel?
Chris Grayling
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we have put down a clear requirement that as Heathrow expands a proportion of its capacity is set aside for regional connectivity within the United Kingdom. It is really important that an expanded Heathrow is a gateway for the whole United Kingdom to opportunities around the world, as well as within the country.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I chair the parliamentary air safety group, and I know a little about the aviation sector. During consideration of a statutory instrument upstairs recently, I challenged a Minister to tell me which chief executive or chair of any airline he had talked to about this subject. I have talked to them, and they are terrified of the impact of a no-deal Brexit. He could not name one.
Chris Grayling
I have talked to the chief executives of every major UK airline. I have also talked to representatives of a significant number of international airlines.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As the Secretary of State has spoken to the chief executives, he will of course be aware of their concerns about the contingency agreement only allowing for a freeze in the services of British airlines as they stand at the moment . What reassurances can he give airports such as Edinburgh that this will not in fact be the case, and that expansion will happen should we have to leave the EU?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady says, “should we have to leave the EU”. The country has already voted to leave the EU and we will next week vote on an agreement that would continue current aviation arrangements. If she is concerned about the contingency plans put in place by the European Union, will she join the Government in the Division Lobby next week to support the agreement?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Secretary of State further outline discussions held with Belfast City and Belfast International airports to secure enhanced trading routes post March, and to evaluate what changes the airports may have to make?
Chris Grayling
I have had regular conversations with the leadership of the Belfast airports. Working with them in several areas, I want to see them expand their international flights. More flights are, of course, being planned for next summer, and I hope and believe that they have a strong and prosperous future with better links around the world.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s deal looks dead and we could well be heading into the chaos of a no-deal Brexit. If that is the case, we will no longer be a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency. Given that we do not currently have a bilateral air safety agreement with the US, can the Secretary of State give a guarantee that in the event of no deal there will be no disruption to flights?
Chris Grayling
Yes. The Civil Aviation Authority has been working for well over a year to ensure that in the event that we do not continue as a member of EASA we have a properly functional British alternative.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The services run by community transport operators are of vital importance to our transport sector and communities. During the most recent financial year, the Government supported community transport operators with almost £3.1 million through the bus service operators grant. A number of projects from the £11.5 million building connections fund will also provide new community transport links to support those most at risk of isolation.
Alex Cunningham
That is a tiny amount to invest in community transport. My constituency is largely rural, and people in our villages—particularly older people—are left isolated because profit-making bus companies are not interested in serving them. There is some community provision, but very little funding. Will the Minister offer my isolated communities some comfort and commit more money to that sector, either directly or through the combined authority?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that community transport operators, even within his own community, opened a new service as recently as a few months ago, with extra support from the Department and the bus service operators grant fund. I looked on his local council website to check what was happening with community transport, and there was a reference to the funding that the Department for Transport had provided. The council said that the excellent public community transport in the borough was being provided by funding provided by the Department for Transport.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Until recently, the No. 5 bus service that passes through South Killingholme in my constituency was supported by a Government grant. The local authority is making provision for community transport to provide an alternative, but it will not replace the existing service. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss whether other funding streams can be found to support the service?
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Meadowgreen health centre in Sheffield is moving, leaving the entire Lowedges estate completely unconnected to its GP surgery. Does the Minister agree that, under such circumstances, passenger authorities should be required to consult on bus routes to ensure that they are connected to GP surgeries? Will she write to South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive to ensure that it does just that?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Lady raises two very important issues. I will meet her to see what I can do to help out. She is right that if bus services are being changed, there needs to be communication with not only the traffic commissioner, but the local community. I am more than happy to sit down with her to see what is happening.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
When can we expect a full Government response on the sections 19 and 22 permits?
Ms Ghani
Those are two very important permits, and I know that they have previously caused some anxiety in the sector. Of course, we carried out a consultation. I want to make sure that we respond appropriately, which is why we will take our time to make sure we get it absolutely right. It is important to note that we are working with community transport operators and the Community Transport Association, which receives a substantial amount of funding from us. It is important to note that the status quo as it is today for community transport operators continues.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
What steps is he taking to ensure that community transport groups will not require a licence when the Government align sections 19 and 22 permits with EU regulations? The proposals that went out for consultation still carry a risk that small and medium-sized groups will need to pay in the range of £80,000 to £100,000, which would lead to the widespread disruption of those services. Does the Minister understand those risks?
Ms Ghani
I no doubt do not need to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I am a she, not a he, but no matter.
We are very supportive of community transport operators, which was why the consultation was so important. We will make sure that our response actually fits the fantastic voluntary work that takes place within our community transport network.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Community transport is a lifeline for many older or disabled people who would otherwise be trapped in their own homes, yet the Government propose to introduce a significant and unwanted extra burden on the charities that run those vital services. Age UK has reported that the majority of its community transport services would be forced to close because of the Government’s mistaken proposals. Will the Minister commit to reconsidering her approach and to working with, rather than against, the charities that run those vital services?
Ms Ghani
I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman’s statement, because the Government are yet to put out our response. We are working with the charities sector, including with the Community Transport Association and community transport operators. There is an EU regulation that we are trying to make this fit into, but we are committed to ensuring that our community transport operators continue to operate. That is why we have the £3 million fund and the £11.5 million building connections fund.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Department has been working for some time to ensure that traffic can continue to flow through UK ports as frictionlessly as possible in all scenarios when we leave the European Union. This has included engaging closely with others across Government, and with ports and their representative bodies. As regards ferry capacity, I refer the House to the two statements I made earlier this week.
Tommy Sheppard
The Government will forgive the House some scepticism about their efficacy and intention in this regard. Surely the Seaborne fiasco shows that only one of two things can be happening: either there is abject incompetence in the preparations for no deal; or the Secretary of State and his Department are not really taking them seriously. Which is it?
Chris Grayling
What is disappointing is that I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman, as a Scottish Member, would welcome the additional opportunities for Scottish business as a result of expanded services from east coast ports to northern Europe provided by DFDS, which is a very substantial part of the contracts that we have let.
Martyn Day
Seaborne Freight has negative equity of just over £374,000, with one director being investigated by the Government for a trail of debt related to previous companies, yet due diligence did not flag this up. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether that is because due diligence guidance was to look not at individuals’ trading history, but only at Seaborne’s proposals? Why was such guidance provided?
Chris Grayling
As I said in the House earlier this week, we will not be paying Seaborne until ferries operate. From the point of view of business in Scotland, we have made sure that there are additional routes available from the east coast ports to northern Europe. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, which I hope will not happen, that should be a really valuable alternative for Scottish business, and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that.
Sandy Martin
How long has the Minister’s Department estimated it will take to recruit and train the thousands of additional customs officers who will be required if we leave without a deal, and what conversations has he had with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about this?
Chris Grayling
I am very confident, as I have said, that HMRC will be ready. Of course, the point is that, at the moment, we do not collect customs tariffs or carry out checks. The Government have said very clearly that our prime priority in a post-Brexit world will be the fluidity of trade; other things can follow. Security, of course, remains of paramount importance, but beyond that, other things can follow. That is the approach the Government have taken.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I have two ports in my constituency, with ferry connections running from Milford Haven and Fishguard to Ireland. Those ports assure me that they have the skills and the capacity to handle a variety of Brexit scenarios, but all they see at the moment is the promise of further argument and gridlock in this place. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a duty in this House to provide a way forward for this industry? Those who take comfort in just opposing everything are failing in their responsibilities.
Chris Grayling
I agree with my right hon. Friend. The reality is that it is all well and good Labour Members saying, “We don’t want no deal,” but then they are going to vote against the deal. They have not come up with any credible alternative plan, so I am afraid I take with a very large pinch of salt most of what the Labour party says at the moment.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Government have signed the common transit convention, which means that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, customs declarations and import duties, as now, will be required to be paid only when the goods arrive at their final destination?
Chris Grayling
That is absolutely correct. In very many international trading scenarios using the common transit convention, customs processes can be at the start and the end of the journey. That is one reason why I felt able to say to the House earlier this week that I was confident that, in all circumstances, trade would continue to move relatively freely.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It has been reported that the Secretary of State’s Department is in talks with two rail freight companies about options to provide additional services via the channel tunnel and High Speed 1 to ensure supplies of food and medicines in the event of blockages at Kent ports. It is also claimed that the Department has written to Southeastern trains warning of possible disruption to its services if additional daytime freight movements are required. Is his Department really contemplating emergency rail timetables in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Has he written to Southeastern regarding such contingency plans? Should the many thousands of rail commuters in Kent be bracing themselves for possible disruption?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
The Secretary of State’s responses in Tuesday’s urgent question on the Seaborne fiasco were disgraceful. He has awarded an emergency ferry contract to a company with no boats, no ports agreement, no personnel, debts and key personnel with dubious trading pasts. Parliament needs answers. How was Seaborne identified as a company that merited direct negotiations for an emergency contract?
Chris Grayling
It is a bit like the proverbial stuck gramophone record. I said very clearly, earlier this week, that we have let contracts with a number of operators, of which Seaborne represents about 10%, and we pay no money unless the service is delivered. To clarify further what the Chair of the Transport Committee said a moment ago, we are talking to a number of other potential outlets, in case extra capacity were to be needed—rail, ports, maritime—but nothing else has been decided. We have not issued instructions to any rail company about disruptive timetables and we have not taken any further steps to put additional measures in place. We are simply checking the lie of the land so that we can respond to all eventualities.
Alan Brown
This is an emergency contract that the Secretary of State thought was so critical it could circumvent EU procurement rules for direct negotiation, yet he says, “It’s only 10%” and “Don’t worry, if they don’t deliver, they don’t get paid.” That means they don’t deliver that emergency service. We know how sensitive Dover is; there are predictions of delays that could lead to 30-mile queues. If that 10% is not delivered, what is the impact on Dover?
Chris Grayling
This is why 90% of the new contracts are with DFDS and Brittany Ferries. As I said, I am disappointed that the Scottish National party does not welcome the DFDS contract that will provide additional routes from east coast ports to northern Europe, which will be beneficial to Scottish business.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Putting to one side the ridiculous and desperate allegations of the Secretary of State that Labour is anti-business and his banal allegations over Brexit, I point out that the Seaborne fiasco lays bare his total incompetence and the complete failure of due diligence. Before granting the ferry contract, was he aware of the debt or the promissory note between Ben Sharp, now Seaborne’s CEO, and Mid-Gulf Offshore, acknowledging Sharp’s indebtedness to that company of over $1 million, which remains unpaid?
Chris Grayling
That clearly got under the hon. Gentleman’s skin because he really does not like Government supporting new start-up businesses. The reality is, as I said earlier this week, that due diligence on this contract was done by Slaughter and May, Deloitte and Mott MacDonald, as he would expect, and off the back of that we formed a contract which we pay nothing for until the service is delivered.
Andy McDonald
Here’s another one the Secretary of State might not answer. As a result of this debacle, a variety of legal challenges to the Secretary of State may well flow from, among others, existing freight service providers with capacity. On Tuesday, he said that Seaborne will be able to run ferry services immediately, but on Wednesday the Government said that Seaborne will not be able to open the route between Ramsgate and Ostend until late April at the very earliest. Surely that puts Seaborne in default of its contract to deliver services from 29 March and the contract is therefore void. In those circumstances, should not he reverse his appalling judgment and cancel the contract without delay?
Chris Grayling
We will hold all the companies that have presented us with proposals to the terms of their contracts.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The current CrossCountry franchise runs until October this year, with a possible extension to October next year. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that we are working to look at all options for the new CrossCountry franchise, including rolling stock. We will look at adding much needed capacity to the CrossCountry services as soon as trains become available.
Luke Pollard
In November, an unbelievable 30% of CrossCountry trains to Plymouth terminated early at Exeter because the Voyager trains could not get through Dawlish in bad weather. As well as placing orders for new rolling stock for the long term, will the Minister look at requiring CrossCountry to use the GWR HST trains that are currently being replaced with newer trains, to give Cross Country extra, interim, Dawlish-proof capacity?
Andrew Jones
I had a very positive meeting with the hon. Gentleman and his local council leader yesterday. We agree on the importance of the south-west economy, in particular its connectivity, and we recognise entirely the issue with the Voyager trains and how they are affected by the salt water to which they are exposed. CrossCountry is working on an engineering solution to that and we are working on adding capacity to the franchise. Passenger numbers have grown by 25%, so we need to put more rolling stock into it. We will look at where we can get the trains from to expand that capacity.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Protecting the line at Dawlish is crucial and sends a broader signal that the south-west is open for business, with all the connectivity that implies. So this is a national priority. Essential work is under way now to repair four existing breakwaters in the area. We have committed £15 million for further development work. Ensuring that the line is resilient, and that the south-west is open for business, is a priority.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Before Christmas, I travelled between Leeds and Sheffield on a CrossCountry train and experienced what my constituents regularly experience—as many passengers standing as sitting. The simple fact is that the four-car trains on the busiest part of the route between Leeds and Birmingham are simply inadequate. When we get a new franchise, will the Minister ensure that those four-car trains are extended, so that there is the capacity for people to actually get a seat on them?
Andrew Jones
I recognise entirely the crowding issues that the hon. Gentleman describes and has experienced personally, and which I have also experienced personally, so we are certainly looking to add capacity in the next franchise. We are also looking to add capacity before that franchise comes into force, if we can find it.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Like Sheffield, we do not get much salt water in the west midlands, but West Midlands Railway is now purchasing over £1 billion- worth of new rolling stock. Could not the Minister use that model with the CrossCountry franchise?
Andrew Jones
I am aware of the new rolling stock that is coming in to the west midlands; indeed, it is coming in across many parts of our network. We have a fantastic story on rolling stock coming in over the next two years. I will look at what my hon. Friend says and get back to him with an answer.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
Richard George was appointed by the Secretary of State to review the operational performance challenges on the railway in the north of England, following the introduction of the May 2018 timetable. That includes the performance of services operating through the Castlefield corridor, which includes Oxford Road. The Department continues to work with Transport for the North, Richard George and the industry to find solutions to improve performance.
Graham Stringer
A review simply is not good enough. More than three quarters of trains at Oxford Road do not comply with the timetable. We have had delays, cancellations, reviews. We need an immediate implementation of the Northern Hub investment programme —extra platforms at Salford, and extensions of platforms at Oxford Road, moving to new platforms 15 and 16. Will the Minister do that, and reject the ridiculous idea that this problem can be solved by digitising the signalling system, when there is such mixed rolling stock on these rails?
Andrew Jones
The problem, which is clearly there because the Castlefield corridor is a bottleneck on our network, will be solved using a variety of solutions, some of which will be technical. Funding has been set aside in CP6 and we are working on what that will be spent on.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My constituents, who use the line from Oxford Road through my constituency to Liverpool Lime Street, continue to experience repeated delays and overcrowding, and they are told to expect that situation to continue at least until April. What penalties will Northern face, as much of this seems to be due to lack of rolling stock or of train crew?
Andrew Jones
If any of the train operating companies is in breach of its franchise, there are mechanisms to hold it to account. Northern is run through the Rail North partnership, which is a combination of the Department for Transport and Transport for the North.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Department is very mindful of the affordability of rail services and we have capped regulated fares in line with inflation for the sixth year in a row. Last week we announced our intention to extend the 16-17 railcard, offering 50% off all rail journeys. Together with the recently launched 26-30 railcard, this means that everybody up to the age of 30 will have access to discounted rail fares.
Mary Creagh
I thank the Minister for that reply, but 2018 was an abysmal year for rail travel, with tens of thousands of services cancelled in Yorkshire and across the country. Services in Yorkshire are among the least reliable anywhere in the UK and it is having a huge impact on Wakefield city centre. Will the Minister look again at the Transport Committee’s excellent recommendation to enable season ticket holders to have a discount on their season tickets on the worst-performing lines, which at the moment are TransPennine Express and Northern? Both are heavily used by my constituents, who do not have time to claim for every train service that does not turn up on a daily basis.
Andrew Jones
I am acutely aware that passengers across the north—and, indeed, other parts of our network—did see an unacceptable service in 2018. Those Northern passengers most directly affected received targeted compensation worth about 8%—obviously, far more than the increase that we have just seen. Further compensation funds are available. We are agreeing with Transport for the North about how that money should be spent.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I warmly welcome the decision to extend discounted fares for 16 and 17-year-olds. Four of the five secondary schools in my constituency have no sixth form. We require our students to stay in education until they are 18, and they have to travel by train either north to Kent or to the south coast.
I have always been a big believer in giving it 100%. May I encourage Front Benchers to have that as their long-term aspiration, so that we give a 100% discount on rail fares for 16 and 17-year-olds?
Andrew Jones
That would indeed be a very bold aspiration. Obviously, we want to make sure that we have a viable rail service. If we can offer greater value, we certainly will—that is why we have capped rail fares in line with inflation for the sixth year in a row. We are keen to offer value across the rail network wherever we can.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Ministers will be aware of how long it takes to get right down to Penzance in my constituency.
Derek Thomas
Too long. They will also be aware that people very much depend on that form of transport. The truth is that average wages across my constituency are about a third of those in the rest of the country. Will the Minister give consideration to whether there can be some fairness for my constituents so that they pay less for travel, given their dependency on the network and the distances they travel?
Andrew Jones
If it is possible to deliver greater value, we will of course look at those opportunities. Part of the Williams review is about rail fares. I will make sure that my hon. Friend’s comments are fed over to Mr Williams for his consideration.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
As the hon. Lady will be aware, the airports national policy statement requires 50% of passengers to use public transport by 2030, rising to 55% by 2040. It also requires 25% fewer staff car trips to work by 2030, and 50% fewer by 2040. In addition, I expect Heathrow to meet its public pledge of no greater airport-related road traffic.
Ruth Cadbury
The terminal 5 inspector recommended that that expansion should be dependent on additional rail access, and we have seen the consequences locally of that not having happened. The Department for Transport’s own figures say that a third runway will put an additional 54,000 vehicles a day on our local road system. Will the Secretary of State make any further expansion at Heathrow conditional on western and southern rail access?
Chris Grayling
I want to go further than that. Western rail access is currently in development and we are in the early stages of preparation for southern rail access. We are also making provision at Old Oak Common for a Chiltern connection into that station that will provide a link into Heathrow. High Speed 2, of course, will arrive at Old Oak Common and deliver an opportunity to connect into Heathrow from a different route. Finally, it is my hope that the Mayor of London will, notwithstanding the financial challenges at Transport for London, deliver the Piccadilly line upgrade, which is so important.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
The terminal 5 planning conditions, set as part of its go-ahead, were that there would be no third runway and that there would be a legal limit of 480,000 flights a year. Now, of course, we are getting a third runway, and last week Heathrow asked—and, I presume, will be granted—permission to go beyond its 480,000-flight cap. Is not the reality that any assurances—legal, ministerial or public pledges from Heathrow—are utterly meaningless?
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend has made her point succinctly. She will understand, though, that if an application comes forward from Heathrow to change the current rules, it would be wrong of me as Secretary of State to pass comment one way or the other at the moment.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has mentioned the Piccadilly line upgrade, but he knows that that—and, indeed, Crossrail—is there to cope with existing and future passenger demand, and not Heathrow expansion. Given that we know that Heathrow, as always, will do nothing to cope with the problems that it causes, what will the Government do when there is this massive increase in passengers, a 50% increase in flights and no capacity on those lines to deal with those?
Chris Grayling
Even an expanded Heathrow is forecast to need only 6% of capacity on the Piccadilly line and, as I said a moment ago, we are already moving ahead with western access and starting the process of southern access. I am making provision for a Chiltern route into Old Oak Common, connecting to Heathrow by Crossrail, and HS2 will come to Old Oak Common as part of the first phase of that project. I think we are doing rather a lot to prepare for surface access to Heathrow.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Access for All has delivered step-free, accessible routes at more than 200 stations since it was launched in 2006, and a further 19 stations are currently under construction. To build on that success we have made a further £300 million available to extend the programme, and 300 stations have been nominated for that funding. I expect to announce the successful stations in April.
Damien Moore
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and one station to be nominated is Hillside station in my constituency. My hon. Friend highlighted the criteria that will be used, but does she agree that stations such as Hillside, which play host to less frequent sporting events such as the Open at Royal Birkdale, which hosted 235,000 spectators, should be taken into account when these applications are decided upon?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that Hillside station has indeed been nominated. When preparing for nominations, the industry was asked to include any relevant factors, and Hillside’s nomination included details of the Open. Every factor will be given due weight during the ongoing selection process, and all I can say for now is that I hope there will be good news for my hon. Friend and his constituents in April.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
To get from the car park to the south side of Flint station in my constituency involves two footbridges, and that is one of the projects that was nominated in November last year. Will the Minister assure me that access to funds for those projects will be maintained in the current spending review?
Ms Ghani
We have £300 million available at the moment and we have received 300 nominations. All the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised will be taken into account. It is important to note that journeys with step-free access have increased from 50% in 2015 to 75% today.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
As the Minister knows, if someone wants to get from one platform at Beeston station to the other, the advice is to take a taxi all the way round, which is wholly unacceptable. I am grateful for her acceptance of that fact, and we also bid for funding. Last year she agreed to come to Beeston station to see it for herself. Can she now assure me that she will certainly come before Easter?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Will the Minister ensure that the Access for All project is delivered in Northwich station in my constituency, to allow people with mobility problems and disabilities to use it?
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
This Government are investing at record levels in our rail network as part of the biggest rail modernisation programme for over a century to provide reliability and capacity. Passengers expect high-quality rail services, and we are committed to electrification where it delivers passenger benefits and value for money. We will also take advantage of state-of-the-art technology to improve services.
Christian Matheson
It strikes me that a lot of official capacity is currently being sucked out of the Department by preparations for a no-deal Brexit, and that is slowing up projects that should be pushing ahead. What progress is being made on plans for electrification of the Chester to Crewe and north Wales line or, if not electrification, on the procurement of the electro-diesel trains that are the next best option?
Andrew Jones
The work on Brexit is not in any way changing the delivery of service improvements across our rail network, and one has only to consider how much is happening across the network to prove that point. We are delivering a £50 million project to upgrade the north Wales railway, including a new signalling system, and rolling stock will be picked up as the franchise is renewed.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Andrew Jones
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The transpennine route upgrade is a significant project and we are modernising the entire route. We will be investing £2.9 billion in the first phase of this ambitious upgrade, between Manchester, Leeds and York. The work will commence in the spring. It is the biggest single project of rail enhancement in this country during control period 6. It is complementary to the work on Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is also being developed.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Would it not make a lot more sense to electrify the whole of the midland line, rather than stopping at Kettering in Northamptonshire? If that happened, we could save some of the £56 billion that HS2 will cost us, and save about 30 to 40 houses in Derbyshire that are due to be knocked down. All those things could happen if the Minister electrified the midland line, and passengers would get to London 30 minutes quicker—not that I want that—which is one of the promises the Government have made. For God’s sake, make a big hole in that £56 billion and electrify the midland line.
Andrew Jones
Well, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will not be cancelling HS2, which is a positive project that will generate significant extra capacity right across our network. It is part of a modern, 21st-century rail network. With regard to the midland main line, we do not need to electrify the whole line in order to deliver the journey improvements, and we will see passenger benefits from a brand new fleet of trains from 2022.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Labour’s commitment to electrification has been unwavering, yet the Government have pulled electrification projects across the country. Last month we learned that the transpennine route will no longer support future freight, meet journey time ambitions or, without electrification, deliver on reliability either, depending instead on heavy and polluting diesel bi-mode trains—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The former Secretary of State is chuntering animatedly from a sedentary position about a period of time and a mileage—that is to say, about a length of track—but I can assume only that at this stage, albeit in a very amiable and jocular fashion, the right hon. Gentleman is talking to himself. There are some dangers in that.
Rachael Maskell
As I was saying, it is a downgrade of a downgrade, so why will the Minister not listen to the advice of rail experts, which I know the Secretary of State has had, and fully electrify the route in control period 6?
Andrew Jones
That was absolute nonsense. Labour electrified 10 miles of existing network in all the 13 years it was in government. There has been more electrification in the north-west alone under this Government than in all those 13 years, so we will take no lessons from the Labour party on this. With regard to the transpennine upgrade, we are spending £2.9 billion. It is the biggest single project in control period 6, as I explained to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) only a moment ago. Rather than criticising, Labour Members should be supporting this project, and perhaps asking why they did not do it. We will take no lessons whatsoever from the Labour party, which did nothing at all for our rail network.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the important question of Crossrail. He will know that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Transport for London, and it is for TfL in the first instance to evaluate the future. Notwithstanding recent hiccups, we feel excited about the potential for the project.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will understand the huge disappointment in Romford, where we were hoping that Crossrail would be coming into action much sooner. At least partly because of the Mayor’s poor financial management of TfL, we have to wait a lot longer, so will the Minister assure the House that the new funding package will bring Crossrail to fruition much sooner?
Jesse Norman
As I said, Crossrail is a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL. It would be wrong for me to comment on the way the Mayor has handled TfL’s finances—that is a matter for him—but I will say that it is a very important project. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a new chief executive, Mr Wild, and he is understandably taking time to review the project fully before he publishes his own views.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Last night, the Evening Standard reported that officials from the Department for Transport and TfL were first notified about the Crossrail delays in June 2016. Will the Minister confirm that that is correct?
Jesse Norman
I have not seen the report that the hon. Gentleman describes, but he will know that in July we published a written ministerial statement touching on the question of whether there might be delays. It is striking that the Secretary of State was not notified until the end of August, and there has been some suggestion that TfL was notified before that.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The issue of Vnuk and insurance is very important and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise it. Our assessment is perfectly clear: if it is not amended, the proposal has the potential to shut down UK and European motorsport industries. We take it very seriously. Of course, there would be further impacts on innovation throughout the UK automotive industry, and potentially more widely.
Mark Garnier
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. From my conversations with the Motorsport Industry Association, I know that it cannot sing the praises of the Department and officials more highly in respect of this incredibly important point. If the motor insurance directive comes into force, not only will it completely destroy the market for the most innovative part of our automotive sector, but during the transition period it may also destroy the UK domestic market. I know that the Minister is doing everything he can to try to sort this situation out, but I ask him to redouble his efforts and work as hard as he can to make sure that we do not lose the crown jewels of our motor industry.
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend very much for the recognition of the work that my officials and I have been doing on this issue, which we take extremely seriously. Lotus, Williams, McLaren—this country has a £10 billion motorsport industry. These ill-judged arrangements might put it at risk, and we are determined to do everything we can to prevent that.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
Officials from my Department have met the Premier League, most recently in November, to discuss collaboration between the railway industry and football bodies to improve travel to and from football matches. The Rail Delivery Group is a key partner in that ongoing collaboration.
Dr Allin-Khan
Football fans in this country are often stung when fixtures are rescheduled for TV, meaning that they regularly miss out on the cheapest train tickets. The Premier League, the English Football League and the Rail Delivery Group are all in favour of a fans’ fare scheme, but the Department for Transport is dragging its feet. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss how we can address this important issue, which affects so many football fans in this country?
Andrew Jones
The joint project involving the Rail Delivery Group, train operators, football bodies, supporters’ groups, British Transport police and the DFT has been set up to look into a range of issues around football-related train travel. That work includes the exploration of a flexible ticketing offer for supporters, including for when matches are rescheduled. I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady. I would be interested to hear whether she will condemn the strikes throughout the north on Saturdays, which are affecting football fans’ capacity to get to their matches. Let us hear Labour say something on behalf of football fans throughout the north, and not in support of strikers.
Mr Speaker
Having heard the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) from his seat, we can now have the considerable joy of hearing him on his feet.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Will the Minister look at the responsibilities across his whole Department and other sectors covered by his Department as far as such situations are concerned? Last night, the M1 was closed for four hours, thus preventing all the supporters of Burton Albion from getting to the Etihad stadium. Will there be an inquiry into why it was necessary to close the M1 for four hours on both sides?
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend makes a very valuable point with which I entirely agree. We will look at this matter across the Department.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
May I begin by extending the condolences of the whole House to the family of Lee Pomeroy, who was tragically murdered on a train in Surrey last week? I pay tribute to the three members of staff who dealt with the tragic situation and all the British Transport police who responded to it; they all acted with great bravery. While I am talking about bravery, let me also pay tribute to the British Transport police officer who was stabbed in Manchester during the terrorist incident a few days ago.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and share his sentiments about the terrible attacks on our trains recently.
On 2 January I was at Castleton station in my constituency, watching train cancellation after train cancellation as my constituents were trying to get back to work after the new year break. Does the Secretary of State think that it is fair to hit rail passengers with an above-inflation rise in fares, given the clear decline in punctuality and reliability, and worsening overcrowding on our trains?
Chris Grayling
We have set a limit in line with inflation for the increase in regulated fares. Transport for the North and the Rail North Partnership have additional financial resources from the compensation package provided last summer that they can use on lines that continue to be affected by underperformance if they choose to do so. I would be very happy to see them do that.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. For over a decade it has been illegal for taxi and private hire drivers to refuse assistance dogs, and I am clear that they must comply with the law. We cannot risk lowering people’s confidence and ability to travel independently. Licensing authorities have the power to stop this happening by training drivers to understand their duties and by prosecuting them when they fail to comply. We are considering the recommendations mentioned by my hon. Friend and will publish a response in due course.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Owing to undercutting caused by the exclusion of seafarers from equality and minimum wage legislation, UK seafarers only account for about 15% of all seafarer ratings in the UK shipping industry. That is shocking. But now that the Secretary of State has spent £103 million of UK taxpayers’ money on these UK ferry contracts, will the Minister tell us whether any UK seafarers will be employed, and will the crews be protected by UK employment legislation? Yes or no?
Ms Ghani
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken and has not heard what the Secretary of State mentioned earlier. No money has yet exchanged hands and it is up to the company how it crews its ships. It is important to note that we are working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that we can deliver the national minimum wage for our seafarers.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
My hon. Friend has been a very tireless campaigner for transport issues in his constituency and I would be delighted to meet him.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Jesse Norman
I will resist the temptation to comment in advance on the elegance of the solution, but I think it is a very interesting idea in principle. As the hon. Lady may be aware, it would require the transfer of the road from Highways England and the agreement of the Secretary of State. We would also want to be sure that any changes were consistent with the combined authority’s long-term transport plans. Subject to those constraints, we would be very interested to see it.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Neither the police nor the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has records of foreign-registered vehicles that have been in the UK for more than six months, which means that our roads are more dangerous and there is not equality under the law for British nationals. What are the Government going to do about this issue?
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the problem concerns foreign-registered vehicles. For British nationals, there is an equality under the law. I recognise that there is concern about this issue. He knows that we seek vigorously to apply road traffic legislation where we can. This is for the police, in the first instance. In some cases, local authorities use international debt recovery agents. However, I recognise the problem that he describes.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Chris Grayling
I do not have the costs immediately to hand. However, the point about Operation Brock is that it is designed to replace Operation Stack and provide a solution well into the early 2020s in the case of disruption at the channel ports, which I do not want to see. To do the work on the M20 and the work that has happened on the M26, the cost is in the low tens of millions of pounds, but I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman an exact number. It is really important that we do not see a repeat of the disruption of 2015 in Kent.
Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Knutsford commuters have been repeatedly promised an upgrade to the Knutsford to Manchester line to two trains an hour. However, after excuses and procrastination, that is now not happening at the time it was meant to happen. It is unacceptable to have such an unreliable and irregular service for such a busy part of the country. Will the Secretary of State intervene, speak to Northern, speak to Network Rail, and get this promise fulfilled?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that we want to see reliable services offering high capacity. She speaks well on behalf of her constituency. I will of course look into the matter and get back to her.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Chris Grayling
This is really an issue for the Spanish and Irish Governments; it does not affect British Airways at all, as it will be covered by the transitional arrangements as well as by the international agreements we have in place. It is an issue for Iberia and for Aer Lingus, which will clearly want to carry on flying within the European Union.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council. What further progress is being made by the roads Minister and his team towards tabling the statutory instrument to facilitate the decriminalisation of parking in Kettering?
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend will know, we have discussed this at some considerable length over a long period. The matter currently rests with discussions with Northamptonshire County Council, but we are pushing ahead as fast as we can on it.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Chris Grayling
First, let us be clear: there is no perfect, off-the-shelf system available to airports that will simply deal with this problem overnight. I pay tribute to those in the police and the military, and across government, who responded so quickly to the Heathrow problem, ensuring that the runway was closed for a very short length of time, and to the team at Heathrow who did the same.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Now that the consultation on the High Speed 2 working draft environmental statement has closed, has the Minister had any indication of when HS2 Ltd will publish its response? Can she ensure that every submission will be given careful consideration?
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
Currently just one out of 10 tube stations in Kensington is step-free. That is unacceptable. The council and London’s deputy mayor for transport tell us we must rely on developer funding to pay for it, which will never be enough, and in some instances they suggest funding just one platform in one direction, which is insulting. Just 50 stations out of 270 are step-free in the capital— the worst record in Europe. Will the Minister review Government funding to address the severe lack of inclusivity across our capital’s transport system, which is a national disgrace?
Ms Ghani
I believe that the hon. Lady is talking about the underground, which is the responsibility of the Mayor. Transport in London is devolved to the Mayor and delivered by Transport for London. It is for the Mayor to determine how to increase step-free access at underground stations. If the hon. Lady is embarrassed about the situation, I suggest she takes this case straight back to the Labour Mayor of London.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Heathrow flight paths go over the most densely populated part of our country—London communities. Drones are a clear public safety risk, as things stand. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should review the decision to further expand Heathrow and have more flights over more communities, on public safety grounds?
Chris Grayling
I am afraid I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. Airports in this country and around the world are now working intensively to ensure they can deliver technology that will deal with this issue. That needs to be done long before we ever get to the point of expanding Heathrow airport.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
How much additional funding will the Department require in the 2019-20 financial year in the event of no deal, and has the Treasury approved that?
Chris Grayling
We have an allocation of funding for next year, but almost all our expenditure has taken place within the current year—it is in the region of £70 million. That is the prime amount we are spending. In the next financial year, if we require some of the contingency capacity to which I have committed, there will be a cost. As the House is aware, the maximum that we have contracted for is £103 million.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State give us an update on the midland main line delayed franchise? As he knows, I am very grateful for the conversation we have had. Stagecoach has taken out £35 million of profit, and it appears to be running down an otherwise excellent system. Can he tell us when the franchise will be awarded?
Chris Grayling
The slight delay to the issuing of the new franchise is for complex reasons related to rail pensions. I have noted the issues that my right hon. Friend has raised. I am concerned about it. It would be unacceptable for any current franchisee to run down the franchise in the run-up to renewal, and a strong message is being sent to the company that, if that is happening, it has to stop right now.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is not clear to me what the unforeseeable emergency was that allowed the Secretary of State to award the contract to Seaborne Freight outside the rules. Did he receive explicit legal advice about that, and if so, will he consider publishing it?
Chris Grayling
We are confident that this was a proper procurement process, handled by the procurement team in my Department in the normal way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll buy my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) a cup of tea in a minute.
Will the roads Minister meet me to discuss how we can transfer a section of the A21 through Hurst Green from the hopeless Highways England to East Sussex County Council, before more of my constituents end up in hospital?
Mr Speaker
I do wish the hon. Gentleman would wear his Arsenal tie a bit more often.
Jesse Norman
I will not comment on that sartorial choice. Of course I completely disagree with my hon. Friend’s description of Highways England, but I would be delighted to meet him.
Mr Speaker
Yes, I will take a point of order, which I think is of some salience.
Justine Greening
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to the debate we are about to have, the Government have said that they have already accepted some amendments. That is a concern, because they seem to directly contradict the withdrawal agreement that this House is debating whether to approve. In itself, it is a legal document that has been negotiated and agreed with the European Union and 27 member states, but, again, the Government seem to have accepted amendments I am not sure you have yet selected for debate. Can you tell me whether that is in order?
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. It is important that people, within this Chamber and outside, know the procedure and know the facts. No amendments have been accepted by anyone to date for one very simple and compelling reason: no amendments have yet been selected by the occupant of the Chair. Moreover, no amendments can be selected by the Speaker until the last day of the debate, which is to say next Tuesday, as required by the Order of the House of 4 December. Some people it seems—certainly not the right hon. Lady—really do need to keep up.
Business of the House
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week will be:
Monday 14 January—Continuation of debate on section 13(1)(B) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Tuesday 15 January—Conclusion of debate on section 13(1)(B) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Wednesday 16 January—Second Reading of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.
Thursday 17 January—Debate on a motion on mental health first aid in the workplace, followed by debate on a motion on children’s social care in England. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 18 January—The House will not be sitting.
I would like to follow the remarks made by a number of Members this week and offer my condolences following the sad passing of Lord Ashdown and Lord Foster, two much-loved and popular figures who gave so much to politics and to their parties. Their families are in our thoughts.
I know Members will have been as shocked and appalled as I was to witness the abuse levelled at our colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I hope we can start this new year in Parliament by setting a good example for others to follow.
Finally, I hope all hon. Members had a calm and restful break over Christmas. I would like to wish everyone a happy and productive new year.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the business, albeit just one week’s. I join her in paying tribute to Lord Ashdown and Lord Foster, who were both very great servants of this House. I, too, want to express our solidarity with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). She should never have been treated and abused in that way while going about her lawful business. Other hon. Members are also suffering these difficulties. They are doing so quietly because there are cases ongoing.
May we have a date for an Opposition day debate please? We have not had one since 13 November. The Leader of the House helpfully gave us the Easter recess dates. She knows what I am going to ask: when are the May dates? The House needs to plan.
This is a Government without a majority. They are in crisis and in denial about the crisis. The Government have faced two defeats in one week, breaking records. This is the first Government to be defeated on a Finance Bill since 1978. Our constituencies, businesses, the science community, the NHS, security and this House have made it clear that the Government should rule out a no-deal Brexit, yet the Government have refused to do so.
In fact, the Government are making plans for no deal. That is why this House, elected by our constituents, cannot rely on Government mantras or a Cabinet who discuss the fantasies of 50-year-old swingers and arrange a no-deal scenario with 89 lorries when 10,000 lorries use the channel ports, and when contracts are being given out for services that do not exist. A concerned House voted for an amendment to ensure the Government come back within three sitting days, because they cannot be trusted.
How many times over the years have we heard it said in this place, “No, this can’t be done”—“No, women can’t have the vote”, “No, women can’t be on the Floor of the Chamber. They have to be up in the Gallery”, “No, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act can’t be altered”? In fact, it can be done. A well-respected former Attorney General tabled an amendment and Parliament rose up, because the evidence was clear.
In December, the Government agreed and tabled a motion, and the vote was agreed for 11 December, but the Government pulled the vote. The Government said no to this House, no to a vote, and treated a democratically elected Parliament with contempt while themselves being in contempt. Will the Leader of the House categorically confirm today that the meaningful vote will take place on Tuesday 15 January?
There are no new amendments, legal or otherwise, to the agreement. It is the same old agreement. Nothing has changed, other than a written statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday announcing the publication of a policy paper on UK Government commitments to Northern Ireland—warm words and reassurances, but still the same old agreement. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) has called this “cosmetic” and “meaningless”. Can the Leader of the House say whether a new agreement will be tabled before Tuesday, or will the House be voting on the same old agreement?
On Monday, the House debated the fifth report of the Committee on Standards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) intervened on the Leader of the House and asked what she meant when she said that the purpose of the review
“will be…to address outstanding areas, such as how to incorporate into the scheme visitors to constituency offices”.—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 125.]
Several colleagues have approached me and said they are unclear what she meant. Will she explain, in a letter to all Members, what that means, and will she ensure that all Members are consulted?
Later that day, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made a point of order to clarify another matter. He said that
“if there is no order of the House that a debate must end at a particular time, and if Members are standing at the moment of interruption, then that debate should continue at another time, when time becomes available”.
Madam Deputy Speaker said:
“I took the decision that the Question ought to be put to the House”.—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 135.]
I do not recall the Leader of the House challenging the Chair on the ruling. Can the Leader of the House respond to all the questions that I and other Members might have asked if the debate had continued and tell us when she will respond?
On a slightly different matter, will the Leader of the House look at the delays in the personal independence payment appeals? A constituent of mine sent in an appeal in July 2018. My constituents are still waiting for an appeal date. It seems that the Department for Work and Pensions has missed all evidence submission deadlines, and my constituents have been told they will have to wait 27 weeks for an appeal. This is unacceptable and is affecting the most vulnerable.
On a happier note—well, I am not sure about that, but it was a significant day—yesterday saw the official launch of the MPs’ guide to procedure. I was pleased to see that the Chair of the Procedure Committee was there, along with the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). Four hundred copies have been given out. That shows what the House staff can do and their tremendous talent. Every single page, including the design, layout, words and review, was done in-house. We should nurture that talent in-house and thank everybody who took part—all their names are on the inside cover. In particular, I should mention those you mentioned in your foreword to the guide, Mr Speaker: John Benger, Mark Hutton and, of course, Joanna Dodd, who had the unenviable task of editing the whole thing. It is a very good tome.
May I add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) on their knighthoods, and that great public servant, Roy Stone, who served this House so well? In particular, I should also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell). I have always called him Sir Alan!
Sadly, next week will be the last in which Fiona Channon will serve the House. She has been here since 1999 and has had roles in the Estates Team and the Committee Office. She has always undertaken her duties with efficiency and courtesy and has been incredibly professional serving this House so well. She will be missed. She is only down the corridor in the House of Lords, but I hope she will come back. Fiona, thank you very much for everything you have done to help us function.
Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Lady for the warm gratitude that she showed to those who work so hard in this House. I absolutely share that, and I particularly point to Fiona Channon, who has done so much in this place, and to Sir Roy Stone, who has done so much in the Whips Office for a very long time.
The hon. Lady asks when there will be an Opposition day debate. As she will appreciate, there is a lot of important business at the moment, but the Government will, of course, abide by our obligations to provide Opposition days. I note her point about the May recess, but I am glad that she acknowledges that we have just announced an agreed Easter recess.
The hon. Lady asks if we will rule out a no-deal Brexit. As she will appreciate, that is the legal default position. Members of the House have the opportunity next Tuesday to vote for a deal that would rule out no Brexit, and I encourage them to take that opportunity. She asks me to confirm that, as I have just announced, the meaningful vote will take place on Tuesday 15 January, and I refer her to the business of the House that I have just read out.
The hon. Lady asks about the point of order that was raised concerning visitors to constituency offices. She was on the working group on the complaints procedure, so she knows full well—I am surprised that she is asking me—what the group decided about the question of how to deal with complaints from people who come to our constituency offices, sometimes with very grave problems.
We, as Members of Parliament, always seek to help our constituents, but sometimes we cannot do so for various complex reasons, as all hon. and right hon. Members will know, and constituents sometimes take against the result. The working group, which the hon. Lady was a part of—and you, Mr Speaker; we had regular conversations about this—decided that in order for the complaints procedure to get up and running for six months, we would deal at a later point with the complexities of people with various mental health issues and grievances that might not be valid in a complaints procedure sense. We agreed in the House that the question of how, if at all, we could deal with the complaints of constituents in our constituency offices—either to our constituency staff, or to us, as Members—would be looked at in the six-month review of the complaints scheme, which kicks off on 21 January. I will, of course, be delighted to write to all hon. and right hon. Members on that point, for clarity.
On the hon. Lady’s point about the talking out of a vote the other evening on the Standards Committee report, I can absolutely reassure her that both the Member who raised the point of order and the actions of the Deputy Speaker were entirely in order. You might want to confirm that, Mr Speaker, but that is a matter for you. The advice I have taken is that both were entirely in order.
With regard to PIP, if the hon. Lady wants to write to me, I will of course take up her serious constituency matter. I point out that this Government have ensured that there has been an £8 billion increase in real terms since 2010 in the amount of money that we spend on supporting people with disabilities.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
As many people may have noticed, I have not been in this Chamber as much as I might have liked over the last three months. As the House will know, I was acquitted just yesterday in Southwark Crown court of all charges relating to the 2015 general election. I know that business questions are generally a call for debate, but in respect of election law we fundamentally need legislative change. In this area, it is surely unacceptable that innocent people are dragged through the courts, at enormous expense to the public purse, on the back of abstract law.
My case went through a variety of court processes prior to trial. In March, the Appeal Court, in front of the Lord Chief Justice, agreed with the long-held principle that election expenses can only be so if authorised by a candidate or agent. The Supreme Court, in July last year, overturned that view to one of mere use, whether authorised or not.
The opportunity for ne’er-do-wells to get involved in election processes and cause prosecutions is surely obvious. Everyone acknowledges that there are huge grey areas between the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—it deals with what is usually called the national spend—and the Representation of the People Act 1983, which covers local spend. Electoral Commission guidance is confused and sketchy. I would not want anybody in this House, from either side, to go through what I have been through over the last three years. Surely, it is in the interests of the House and all Members that we have clear and unambiguous law, and I hope that a campaign for clarity in this area will be supported across the House.
Andrea Leadsom
Can I say to my hon. Friend that I am delighted for him that he has been fully acquitted? I congratulate him on that. My heart goes out to him over the difficult time he has had in recent years in clearing his name. I think all hon. Members across the House would recognise, on a non-partisan basis, what a difficult time he has been through. It is fantastic that he has been found not guilty of any offence.
It has become apparent from broader legal proceedings that election law on spending in 2015 was fragmented and unclear, with even the courts divided on the interpretation of the law. The Government will take steps, working alongside the Electoral Commission, to ensure there is a clearer and more transparent framework in future elections. It is in everybody’s interests that we get this right, and the Government are committed to protecting and strengthening electoral integrity.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I join the tributes to Lord Ashdown and Lord Foster, congratulate Sir Roy Stone on his well-deserved honour and wish Fiona Channon all the best.
Yesterday was truly appalling and embarrassing. For the second business week in a row, Government Members were reduced to nothing more than a braying mob, finding conspiracy in car stickers. Once again, we found the Leader of the House centre stage as the principal cheerleader, egging her colleagues on in that unedifying spectacle. This has to stop, Mr Speaker, and the Conservatives must start to respect the authority of the House and the authority of your office.
This is utterly appalling hypocrisy. The Government have done their level best to curtail debate and withhold information from the House. They were even compelled by the courts to allow us to have a vote on leaving the European Union, and only successive votes of the House got them to reveal vital information about their Brexit deal. They have been found in contempt of Parliament. It is absolutely right that they are stopped.
Do you know what, Mr Speaker? This is called taking back control—a concept the Government might be a little familiar with. The House must have its collective view known, and you, Mr Speaker, are to be commended for ensuring that the view of the House will always come first. The Government had better get used to it, because Parliament is increasingly asserting itself. As this chaotic Government continue spectacularly to collapse, this House and its membership will pick up the slack. If the Government want Government versus Parliament, they will be on the losing side, because we are now in the majority.
There is no business scheduled for a week on Monday, the day the Government are now obliged to come back with an alternative to the Prime Minister’s deal. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is exactly what they will do? Will they come back and explain the options, and is she actively considering what those options are? This feels a little like the end of Tory days. It is unusual for a country to witness such a chaotic and spectacularly shambolic collapse of a Government. Perhaps we can have a debate—we might call it a vote of confidence—so that this country can be shot of this chaotic Government once and for all.
Andrea Leadsom
I genuinely value the hon. Gentleman’s views. I listened to him very carefully, and I agree with him that taking back control is absolutely essential. The fatal flaw with his assertion is that what happened yesterday was not Parliament taking back control. What happened yesterday and in the days running up to it was that a number of hon. Members tried to table amendments to yesterday’s business of the House motion. [Interruption.] A number of them, on both sides of the House, tried to put forward amendments to the business motion. The Table Office said the motion was unamendable and undebatable. [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position, “How do you know?” I know that the Table Office turned Members away, saying that the motion was unamendable and undebatable.
If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire looks carefully at “Erskine May”, he will see that “forthwith” means unamendable and undebatable. As for his point about Parliament taking back control, the issue is that the role of the Chair is to uphold the rules that Parliament has made for itself, not to change those rules arbitrarily. So yesterday was not an example of Parliament taking back control, but an example of a differentiation between the Members who were told that the motion was unamendable and undebatable, and those who were told differently.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would accept the Grieve amendment; of course the Government will do so. The Prime Minister has shown her willingness always to return to the House at the first possible opportunity if there is anything to report in relation to our Brexit deal, and we will continue to do so.
Let me finally deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point about “no confidence”. As I have said time and again, should this House have no confidence and should the official Opposition put an issue of no confidence to the House under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Government will provide time for it to be debated, as is the convention. The official Opposition have not chosen to do so, and therefore this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have looked forward to hearing from colleagues who have a chance to participate in the business question—as, of course, the Leader of the House has not merely the opportunity but the obligation to do—so I will content myself simply with saying this.
There was nothing arbitrary about the conduct of the Chair yesterday. This Speaker is well aware of how to go about the business of chairing the proceedings of the House, because he has been doing so for nine and a half years. I hope that colleagues will understand when I say that I require no lessons or lectures from others about how to discharge my obligations to Parliament and in support of the right of Back-Bench parliamentarians. I have been doing it and continuing to do it, and I will go on doing it, no matter how much abuse I get from whatever quarter. It is water off a duck’s back as far as I am concerned.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Last night in Westminster Hall, during a debate about the armed forces, a Minister put the case very eloquently for more spending on defence, not just because of the threat that this country faces, but because of the wider benefits to society of our armed forces. Would it be possible for us to have such a debate in Government time, so that we could really make the case for investment in our armed forces?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend. He will be aware that in the Budget the Chancellor pledged an extra £1 billion for the Ministry of Defence over the next two years. Defence questions will take place on Monday, and I encourage him to raise the matter then.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the two Backbench Business Committee debates next Thursday. That is very welcome, given that both debates have been pulled on previous days because of the overrunning of other business.
My I give notice that the Committee has received an application for a debate on Holocaust Memorial Day? If any time could be found during the week beginning 21 January so that we could mark that day, the Committee would be most grateful.
Finally, let me issue a little advertisement. The Backbench Business Committee—in collaboration, of course, with the Liaison Committee—is inviting applications for a departmental estimates day debate. The date is yet to be determined, but it will have to be prior to 18 March.
Andrea Leadsom
As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving a heads-up of his Backbench Business Committee requests. I will certainly take them away and look at them carefully.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The present is formed by what we know, and the future is shaped by what we learn. In that spirit the Workers’ Educational Association reaches 50,000 people a year through a network of branches and an army of volunteers. It teaches everything from architecture to arithmetic and from computer skills to competence in English, and yet, alarmingly, it now faces a 28% cut in its core funding. You, Mr Speaker, will doubtless be familiar with the words of the Commission on Adult Education from 1919:
“Adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong”.
Is this generation to forget what its forefathers knew: whatever disadvantage people face, they deserve the chance to bask in the light of learning?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of learning. I am not aware of the organisation he mentions, but I am sure he will, in his usual way, seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise the issue directly with Ministers.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Can we share some understanding for the Leader of the House, who is obviously struggling a little bit at having been defeated in yesterday’s vote? It is sometimes very difficult when one loses a vote, and we really should show some appreciation for how she is struggling to reconcile herself with being in that losing position.
Perhaps the Leader of the House, however, can confirm that she is keeping space free on Monday 21 January, for after the Prime Minister’s proposals have been defeated, so that the House will be able to debate what comes next. She would not want to fail to comply with the instructions of the House, albeit she is a bit sore at having lost on that particular point. Finally, can she confirm, excellently, that she will also be publishing the advice her officials are giving her about Monday 21 January since she was entreating the House and the Speaker to publish all the advice that is given to him?
Andrea Leadsom
I am slightly disappointed at the hon. Gentleman for helpfully mansplaining my job to me. I am perfectly able to carry out my job, and I have already answered the question put by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) by saying that the Prime Minister will, of course, abide by the terms of the Grieve amendment.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House to consider giving legislative time for the introduction of a housing ombudsman? I and a number of other Members are having problems with cowboy builders, particularly a building firm called Southworth Construction in my constituency, which is building substandard homes. A number of companies headed up by similar directorships have folded, and the situation is causing great concern to not only my constituents, but those of other Members.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituency, and I am aware that many Members are concerned about the quality of house building. She will be aware that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is looking carefully at this issue and what more can be done, but I absolutely applaud her for raising the matter in the Chamber. I encourage her to perhaps seek a Westminster Hall debate so that other hon. Members can join in with the conversation about what more needs to be done.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Jayden Moodie was a 14-year-old little boy who was mown down by thugs in my constituency on Tuesday night and then stabbed to death. He is the sixth child that my community has had to bury in the last 18 months; many more have been stabbed or attacked with guns in my constituency. I know that the Leader of the House will understand the concern that I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) share about policing and the importance of police resources, but we also want to prevent these instances, and too many of the histories of these young people involve exclusion from mainstream schooling. Too many of our young people are being written off. The Government announced last March that they were doing a review into exclusion, so may we have an urgent update on that review and on what is being done to put proper support into helping these young people to save their potential, rather than seeing more families having to bury children because of youth violence?
Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we have to do everything that we possibly can to stop young people getting into this life of danger to themselves and to others around them. She will be aware that I have already given two days of full debate on what more we can do in the area of prevention. We also have Home Office questions on 21 January, and I encourage her to raise this matter then. She will be aware that the Government have introduced our serious violence taskforce and that we are committing hundreds of millions of pounds to community projects that seek specifically to get young people out of those directions that lead to a life of knife crime, and potential death to themselves or their colleagues. We need to do everything we possibly can, and the Government are absolutely committed to this.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
World Cancer Day is on 4 February, and I am delighted that you, Mr Speaker, and the Lord Speaker have kindly agreed to the request to illuminate the Palace of Westminster in pink to mark that day. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Elaine Monro from Selkirk in my constituency, the Cancer Research UK volunteer who suggested that proposal? Can we also find time for a debate to look into the causes of cancer and how we can address them?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in commending Elaine for her excellent idea. Fighting cancer is a top priority for the Government, and survival rates are at a record high. There are around 7,000 people alive today who would not have been if mortality rates had stayed the same as they were in 2010, but there is much more we can do. Our 10-year plan for the NHS will radically overhaul early detection and boost research and innovation, so I think we are in a good place. There is more to do, but we are committed to eradicating the terrible problem of cancer.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Further to the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and previously from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), Jayden Moodie’s murder has shocked us all. Notwithstanding the other important issues we are discussing at the moment, I think the country would expect us to reflect on what we are going to do about the fact that a 14-year-old boy has been brutally murdered on our streets. He had just moved from my constituency to Walthamstow. We can be outraged and shocked, as we all are, but what are we going to do about this? What is this Parliament going to do about it? We can all say that this or that should happen, and I know that the Leader of the House shares this concern—she has mentioned the serious violence taskforce and the Government’s strategy—but surely the Home Secretary should be coming to the House on a regular basis to update us on what is happening, and on what is and is not working. Nobody wants to see this happen again. We cannot rewind the clock, but we owe it to Jayden Moodie and to all the other victims, and their families and communities, to show that we know what is going on, that we care, and that we are going to work with them to do as much as we can to stop this.
Andrea Leadsom
Again, I totally agree. We owe it to Jayden’s family to do everything we possibly can. I can outline some of the specific actions that the Government are taking. There is a £200 million youth endowment fund to provide support to children and young people who are at risk from a life in the world of knife crime, gangs and drugs, to try to stop that. There will be £22 million over the next two years for a new early intervention youth fund to support youth groups and communities in their attempts at early intervention and prevention. There will be more than £1 million for the anti-knife crime community fund to help communities themselves to tackle knife crime. There are youth violence intervention programmes such as Red Thread in London—it is expanding to include Birmingham and Nottingham—and some of those projects go into hospitals after young people have been attacked with knives to try to persuade them at the bedside to choose a different path. We have also been carrying out the #knifefree campaign, and the police have Operation Sceptre, which is looking at a proposal for knife amnesties. So the Government are doing a lot, but I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that we owe this to Jayden’s family, and to all the families of the many people who are suffering from this appalling spike in knife crime, which is absolutely unacceptable.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time on borrowing by local councils? One only has to read The Times today—I am sure that the Leader of the House has—to see that it is getting out of control. Taunton Deane Borough Council has borrowed £16 million to build a spec hotel on a derelict site, which is a potential disaster for the taxpayers of my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, and the council leader is far too close to the developers. We need a proper instruction from central Government about the borrowing that councils can use to buy spec developments, so may we have time in this place to discuss the matter?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an issue that is clearly of great concern to him. I recommend that he raises the matter in a written parliamentary question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ask about the specifics of the legitimacy of that project.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Following the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the murder of Jayden Moody two nights ago in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, although close to the boundary with my constituency, marks a new low in the wave of violent crime, and knife crime in particular, that has swept across London and other parts of Britain. The problem is wide and deep. It seems to be getting worse, and the resources are simply not there to deal with it—that view is shared across the House, not just by Opposition Members. Under these circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said, the Home Secretary and junior Home Office Ministers should be regularly asking the Speaker whether they can make statements to update the House on what is happening and to allow us to question the Executive.
Andrea Leadsom
I pay tribute to all the hon. Members who are raising, as they often do, this appalling problem of the rise in knife crime, which is incredibly concerning. I will not repeat the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, but we also have the Offensive Weapons Bill, which seeks to make it more difficult for young people to obtain knives online and so on. I encourage hon. Members to seek a Backbench Business debate or a Westminster Hall debate before such time as I can offer more parliamentary time. I have given two days of debate to the matter, and we have Home Office questions on Monday 21 January, so the hon. Gentleman may want to raise the matter directly with Ministers then.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
May we have a debate on the importance of academic freedom? Universities are about the free and frank exchange of ideas, even if they are unfashionable and unpopular. Is it not wholly unacceptable to suggest that a respected academic such as John Finnis, emeritus professor of law and legal philosophy, who has taught at the University of Oxford for some 40 years, should be removed from office simply for holding traditional Catholic views? Is that not the opposite of diversity and open, robust debate?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is essential that young people at university learn how to engage in robust debate and to challenge views with which they may not agree. The solution is not to silence those who make them. The Government said in our response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report that we have concerns about the culture in universities in relation to free speech, and we made it clear that all
“education is a place where students should be exposed to a range of ideas, including those that may be controversial and unpopular—and where they learn to think critically and challenge those who they disagree with, not shut them down.”
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate Sir Roy Stone on his knighthood.
Could time be found for a debate on the urgent matter of the incarcerated Kurdish MP and former mayor, Leyla Güven, who today entered her 64th day of hunger strike in protest at the continued isolated imprisonment of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan? Members of the Kurdish community in Wales, including Ilhan Sis of Newport, are among 200 Kurds worldwide undertaking hunger strikes in solidarity. Ilhan is currently in his 25th day of fasting. We should send a clear message of support to fellow democratically elected representatives who have been arrested and imprisoned for the very act of representing their people.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue here. It is vital that all those who seek to represent their communities in a legitimate and law-abiding way should be free to do so. She will be aware that we have Foreign Office questions on Tuesday 22 January, so I encourage her to raise the matter then.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Can we have a debate about traditional events such as the burning of the clavie? This Friday I will be joining thousands of others in Burghead to watch clavie king Dan Ralph and his crew carry a barrel of burning wood and tar through the village up to Doorie hill, where it will then burn out, to celebrate new year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Dan Ralph on his 31st year as clavie king, and in congratulating everyone involved in keeping this ancient tradition alive?
Andrea Leadsom
Fantastic. My hon. Friend, as ever, raises what sounds like a superb event in his constituency. I certainly hope that clavie king Dan Ralph continues to attend for many years to come.
The Government fully recognise the contribution that the UK’s oral traditions, social practices and festive events make to the country’s cultural fabric, and we continue to encourage communities to celebrate these practices and continue them for future generations.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I listened very closely to the Leader of the House when she said that the Prime Minister will abide by the result of yesterday’s vote. The Leader of the House did not categorically guarantee that that means her Government will schedule the next motion for Monday 21 January after the Government lose the meaningful vote next Tuesday, as we anticipate. Could she do that? Will she also confirm where and when she will lodge copies of the advice she receives from officials on these matters, as she also indicated in a previous answer?
Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that my advice was that the amendment selected yesterday would not be in order and would not be selectable. That is the advice I received, and I hope that is very clear. With regard to whether the Government will abide by the Grieve amendment, the Government will abide by the Grieve amendment, and I hope that is now entirely clear.
Mr Speaker
Order. The responsibility for the selection of amendments—I say this not just for Members of the House but for those attending to our proceedings—is, of course, a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the representative and champion of Parliament; it is not a matter for a representative of the Executive branch, who is the Executive’s representative in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I will do my job, and other people can seek to do theirs.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Before Christmas I raised the serious concern about the escalation of aggravated burglaries in my constituency. These are organised gangs of thugs who break into people’s houses when they are home, beat them up and steal their goods, and they steal their address books so that they can move on to the next house. Unfortunately, this has escalated over Christmas and new year, and I understand from colleagues on both sides of the House that it is happening in other constituencies, too. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we challenge aggravated burglaries and on how we support the police in taking action so that we bring these criminals to justice and imprison them, as they deserve?
Andrea Leadsom
I share every one of my hon. Friend’s concerns about this matter. It is horrendous for anybody who has been burgled. I have a constituent who was burgled recently and found it absolutely traumatising, so he is right to raise this serious issue. We have Home Office questions on 21 January, or he might want to seek an Adjournment debate to discuss the particular problem for his constituents.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I surprise the Leader of the House by telling her that in May 2019 I hope to celebrate 40 years in the House? In all those years I do not remember a worse atmosphere in the House. There is something deeply wrong with how we are talking and communicating with each other, and stress at work is not a good thing wherever we work.
I would like an early debate, and I would like the Leader of the House to take the lead. I look at her and realise that she has a really tough job. I have known Leaders of the House for whom the job has been a doddle—their Government had a majority and they got their legislation with no problem, and they often had a very easy Speaker who did everything the Executive told him or her to do.
The fact is that the Leader of the House has a tough job. She has no majority and she is losing votes, which is very stressful. I do care about her, and I worry about her. Sometimes people lash out when they are under stress, but she has a responsibility to do something about how we treat each other in this House. Let us take the initiative and have a debate, which she could lead, to start giving an example to people out there that we can treat each other decently and positively. Will she please take a lead on that?
Andrea Leadsom
I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and the way he said it. He is absolutely right that in this place we do need to treat one another with courtesy and respect. Every Member who comes here is elected by their constituents to represent them, so it cannot be right that any of us should seek to control any other one of us, but at the same time we do have a shared desire for Parliament to be a good role model. I will think carefully about the hon. Gentleman’s words and I will absolutely never flounce again; he has my undertaking.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Later this year, there is the triennial replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. That is an incredibly important fund, which has contributed to the reduction of deaths on a wide scale across the world. May we have a debate on the importance of the fund, especially as some of the progress is stalling, not because of lack of work, but because of resistance to drugs, for instance in the case of malaria?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point and I am extremely sympathetic to it. Eradicating TB, malaria and the problem of HIV/AIDS is absolutely vital for the sake of our world. I would encourage him to seek a debate, perhaps in Westminster Hall, and I will consider whether we can give Government time to such a debate.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The Leader of the House is no doubt aware that Josep Costa attended Parliament this week as the Deputy Speaker of the Catalan Parliament, and met the Deputy Speaker of this House, the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle). Catalan politicians, and indeed the former Speaker of the Catalan Parliament, are facing trial in Spain imminently for supporting the manifesto of their properly elected Government and respecting the will of their own Parliament. I am sure that no one in this House would want our Speaker placed in a similar position for any potential misdemeanours, but will the Leader of the House provide Government time to allow us to debate the situation in Catalonia, and for other Members to express their anger at some of the situations that properly elected politicians have to face in their own country?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Spain is a key ally. They are a very strong democracy and it is right that they, as they do, abide by their own laws at all times. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He may well wish to seek an Adjournment debate, or to ask a question at Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs questions on 22 January.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
May we have a statement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about ongoing issues to do with conduct by some members of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council? Following my Adjournment debate on Sandwell last year, many issues are still outstanding in respect of the standards and conduct of some councillors within that authority. Only last weekend, The Times reported an email exchange between the leader of the council and West Midlands police, where Councillor Steve Eling called for the immediate arrest of a blogger who had criticised him and the council and stated that, if that individual was not arrested, the police would be in contempt and it would be a matter for the Home Secretary. Will the Leader of the House find time for a Minister from the Department to come to the House to explain what the Government will do to help my constituents in Rowley Regis understand what is going on within Sandwell Council?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises what sounds like a very concerning situation. I would strongly encourage him to seek a further Adjournment debate, so that he can debate it directly with Ministers, or perhaps seek to see one of the Ministers in the Department to raise these very specific issues directly.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
As temperatures drop, we need more than ever to tackle the growing epidemic of homelessness, which is frankly killing people. I will be joining the Big Sleep Out at Huddersfield Town stadium in March, raising funds locally. If any Members want to join me for a night under the stars, they will be very welcome, but we need to do much more. Government efforts are clearly not working. They are not enough; they are inadequate. So may we have a debate on how we may reach a cross-party consensus on how we move forward and end the cancer that is homelessness?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue, and I commend her for taking part in the Big Sleep Out; it sounds slightly romantic, but I am sure it will not be. Obviously, homelessness is a scourge on our society—it is incredibly difficult, as we have seen ourselves just outside Parliament. I have certainly worked with the House authorities to look at what more can be done to support those who are homeless outside this place.
Right across the country, as the hon. Lady will be aware, there are complex reasons why people become homeless. I am aware, for example, that Westminster City Council says that there are places for homeless people, but getting them to use them is difficult for a number of reasons. There is a lot more that we are doing. We have committed more than £1.2 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, and we have clear targets to reduce the problem of homelessness and rough sleeping over a very short period.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The original version of the Greater Manchester spatial framework that the Labour leadership in my region drew up was so bad that it was criticised by 27,000 residents, as well as Conservative colleagues across Greater Manchester—it was rightly torn up and started again. The new version of the GMSF is better, especially as it has more of a focus on the redevelopment of Bolton town centre. Can we have a debate on the importance of listening to local residents, who emphasise the importance of redeveloping our town centres and brownfield sites, rather than Labour’s focus on using the green belt first?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important issue. All of us share a desire for more homes to be built and for our high streets to thrive more while ensuring protection for the green belt. He is absolutely right to raise the issue. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss it directly with Ministers.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I hope that the Leader of the House can advise me on how to get the Government to take action on this. People fleeing domestic violence face the most uncertain time in their lives. If they have come from a country outside the European economic area, they can apply for a destitution domestic violence concession. If they are fleeing domestic violence but are originally from inside the EEA, the response that I have had from the Government suggests that they should go to their home country: they cannot apply through the domestic violence concession route. How can I get the Home Office to take the issue seriously? I have had reports of women returning to abusers because they have no recourse to public funds on fleeing their abusive homes. Please will the Leader of the House advise me on how to get the Government to take the matter seriously?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Lady has said. As she will be aware, the Government have committed £100 million of funding into projects that support organisations helping women who have suffered violence. If she writes to me with the specifics of the case she is talking about, I will be very happy to take it up on her behalf.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Labour leadership of Crawley Borough Council has recently wasted about half a million pounds on a delayed IT project at great expense to local taxpayers. When constituents have made freedom of information requests of the local authority, they have been obstructed. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about the importance of the efficiency and probity of local councils such as Crawley’s?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a concerning case. Too often, there are examples of projects going wrong and wasting taxpayers’ money, which can never be right. He will be aware that there are clear rules about the use of taxpayers’ money in such examples. I encourage him to table a parliamentary question to the Department to seek a ruling on this specific issue.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I have been contacted by a constituent who lives part of the year in Portugal. They are concerned about being able to drive and hold car insurance in both countries if they have to exchange their UK licence for a Portuguese one: they need to continue to drive in the EU if we leave the EU. I cannot be the only Member with a constituent who has that concern. I am aware that Transport questions took place earlier; I tried to catch Mr Speaker’s eye, but I was out of luck. Will the Leader of the House ask the Transport Secretary to come to the Floor of the House to make a statement about these licensing issues and issues of car insurance for those who live part-time in the European Union?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not get to ask his question directly to Transport Ministers, but I will do my best. There is now a Government communications plan to try to provide specific answers to such questions. I did not have prior notice of this question, so I do not know whether this issue is included in that plan, but through national radio and so on the Government are directing consumers and householders to the gov.uk website to seek specific answers to questions about what will happen when we leave the EU. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I would also be willing to take up the issue with the Department on his behalf.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
To the great relief of children and parents in Rugby, Yum Yum World, our Willy Wonka-style high street attraction, has been saved because its unfair business rates bill was finally slashed by £59,000. The Valuation Office Agency has two years to respond to a challenge on business rates, which is far too long for a small business that is overpaying by such a huge amount. May we have a debate to consider the priority of institutions such as Yum Yum World keeping our town centres alive?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate Yum Yum World on its survival. Plenty of children and some adults will be delighted by that, but go easy on the sugar everybody!
My hon. Friend raises an important point about business rates and how we can keep our high streets thriving. He will know that the Government have made changes worth more than £13 billion in aggregate to businesses, including taking more than 600,000 small businesses out of paying any business rates at all. Our dedicated Retail Sector Council brings the Government and retail sector organisations together to consider what more we can do to ensure thriving high streets.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituency staff and I have challenged a large number of unfair private parking penalty charges. We have won back more than £700 for local constituents who were wrongly charged, including a constituent who was charged outside a doctor’s surgery for dropping off his wife who has a serious long-term health condition. The Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, promoted by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), was accepted by this House. Will the Leader of the House say when we can expect that Bill to return to this place, and whether it will get Government support? I am sure there will be a lot of interest from across the Chamber.
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady says, and by coincidence, my office has also been dealing with a number of complaints about unfair parking tickets. It is a real problem, and MPs often successfully challenge such matters on behalf of our constituents—I share the hon. Lady’s success levels. She raises an important point about the private Member’s Bill and, as she knows, I attempted to schedule six additional days for the consideration of private Members’ Bills. Unfortunately that motion was subject to an Opposition amendment and was therefore not put to the House. However, I intend to work through the usual channels to provide further information on days to consider private Members’ Bills.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time on cyber-bullying? The Leader of the House will know that before Christmas I raised the case of a 13-year-old boy in my constituency who took his own life, and it is an issue on which Members across the House would like to come together and discuss. Will she welcome the new campaign on this issue, headed by Dame Esther Rantzen, which was launched on the Channel 5 show “Do The Right Thing” on Sunday evening?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an issue that matters a great deal to all families, parents and young people across the country, and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are also concerned about it. The Government have sent a clear message to schools that bullying—including cyber-bullying—for whatever reason, is totally unacceptable. We are providing nearly £3 million in support for anti-bullying projects and, as part of this, the Diana Award has developed a number of resources to help students and staff deal with cyber-bullying and understand reporting together with social media providers, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
There is mounting public concern in Glasgow about the impact of continued council cuts on vital community services. On Tuesday night, Dennistoun Community Council organised a meeting, which was filled to capacity, in protest at the proposed closure of the Whitehill pool, and further cuts are proposed for Haghill sports centre and for golf courses and libraries in my constituency. Glasgow City Council has had a 10% cut since 2011, and the proposed cut for the coming year is 3.6%. Local government cuts in Scotland are five times the cut that the Scottish Government have had, which is a huge amplification. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider holding a debate in Government time on the huge impact that austerity is having on all levels of government and on vital community services across our country?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are concerned about potential cuts, which of course are decisions for local councils to make. What I can say is that councils have access to over £200 billion to deliver local services up to 2020. In areas such as social care, which we know are under pressure, the Government have provided more money. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise his particular concerns directly with Ministers.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Last week, eight-year-old Penelope Jones from Bedworth visited my regular surgery, having written me a letter about improving her local play area. I appreciate that it is not in the gift of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide the zip-line and extra swings that Penelope asked for, but it served as a timely reminder that we represent all our constituents, not just those who are old enough to vote. May we therefore have a debate on how we can better engage with young people and encourage constituents of all ages and backgrounds to engage more positively with their local representatives?
Andrea Leadsom
I think that is a really good idea. I congratulate Penelope on getting involved and trying to improve her local community—hopefully she will keep up her interest for many years to come, and perhaps even stand for Parliament one day. As part of last year’s suffrage centenary, the Cabinet Office has developed various resources for use with young people by teachers, or indeed by representatives, which are designed to educate and encourage them to participate in our democratic society.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
In 1944, eight-year-old Tony Foulds was playing football in Endcliffe Park when a US B-17 bomber flew over and, after swerving to avoid hitting him and the other children, crashed in the woods, killing 10 soldiers. Every single day since then, Tony has maintained the memorial to that B-17, for 75 years. Will the Leader of the House consider meeting Tony and me to discuss how we can honour him, and will she raise with her Ministry of Defence colleagues the prospect of a flypast to mark the 75th anniversary on 22 February?
Andrea Leadsom
That is a heart-warming story, although obviously one that started in tragedy. I congratulate Tony on his absolute commitment to the memorial, and the hon. Lady on raising it today. I would be delighted to meet them both and to raise the matter further with MOD colleagues.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Just a few days before Christmas, the manufacturing firm Kaiam in my constituency closed its doors, telling staff that there would be no pay before Christmas and that they might not have a job in the new year. The West Lothian and Livingston community rallied around and the women of West Lothian set up a hub to ensure that toys, food, money and vouchers were available, so that no one would go without at Christmas. May we have a debate on how quickly the Redundancy Payments Service moneys can be disbursed, and on what can be done to ensure that these companies maintain their pension liabilities, that cowboy chief executive officers, such as the one who runs Kaiam, who flew out of the country as staff were being told their fate, are brought to justice, and that we do everything we can to support the workers during this difficult time?
Andrea Leadsom
I think that we are all incredibly sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s constituents who were given such terrible news in the run-up to Christmas, and we join her in congratulating and thanking all those who made sure that they could still celebrate Christmas. She raises some important points about how businesses behave if they are failing. She will be aware that the Matthew Taylor review has raised some serious issues relating to pensions management and so on, which the Government are looking at closely. I encourage her to apply for an Adjournment debate so that the matter can be raised directly with Ministers.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I say to the Leader of the House that I do not think there is anything wrong with a good flounce—sometimes in life it can be useful—but I do not think that we should flounce out of the European Union. I am concerned that the Solicitor General said that we would manage to have Second Reading of the European Union withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill before Christmas. That cannot now happen until at least 28 January, if at all, and only if next Tuesday we proceed as the Government intend. Therefore, what will the Government do to ensure that we have proper legislation in place before 29 March, and will the Leader of the House seriously consider—do not rule it out now—that we might have to delay leaving beyond that date?
Andrea Leadsom
First, I simply concede to the hon. Gentleman that I am quite sure he would be a better flouncer than me in all circumstances.
Andrea Leadsom
Not in the slightest—we love the hon. Gentleman dearly.
It is absolutely not the Government’s intention or policy to do anything like flounce out of the EU. We are looking at our meaningful vote on Tuesday and it is absolutely our intention that we win that meaningful vote, introduce the withdrawal agreement Bill and have a smooth transition out of the European Union. As the hon. Gentleman will know, my job is to make sure that the legislation passes through both Houses, and it will not surprise him that I look at that issue closely on a daily basis. I am confident that we have enough time to get the withdrawal agreement Bill through both Houses.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Like many in the House, I was delighted with the Home Secretary’s decision last year to make cannabis available for medicinal use. Unfortunately, for many people like my constituent Murray Gray, a little boy, this has not helped to ease their pain. We have heard stories of over-rigid regulations and the difficulty of getting what is now a legal medicine. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate in the House to tackle the thorny and grown-up question of whether we should decriminalise and regulate the cannabis market to overcome this problem?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will be aware that the decision was taken that cannabis oil can be used for medical purposes and it is not the Government’s policy to consider the broader deregulation of the use of cannabis.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Jaguar Land Rover is today set to announce 5,000 job losses in what will be the biggest hammer blow to manufacturing in this country since the closure of Longbridge. When Longbridge closed, it was all hands on deck: we had taskforces and visits from Cabinet Ministers. When will we get an action plan of that kind of force from this Government? Will the Leader of the House tell us when she expects Cabinet Ministers to come forward and explain how we are going to ensure that every single one of those people who lose their jobs today is back in employment as soon as possible?
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise this very concerning report. Jaguar Land Rover will make its statement at 3 o’clock today. The Government will of course respond in full at the appropriate time, but we need to wait until the company has let us know its specific intentions.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Just to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) just said about Jaguar Land Rover, it is very important that we get a statement from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about what discussions he has had with Jaguar Land Rover. It is very important for Coventry and the west midlands. As I have said before, once a company has announced 5,000 job losses, there is a knock-on effect on the supply chain, so we may well need to use a multiplier of two or three. It is important that people in Coventry know what the situation is. Lots of constituents have written to me about this issue over the past few weeks, so it is important that we get that statement.
Andrea Leadsom
I say again that we were all very concerned to hear this report, but we need to wait and see what Jaguar Land Rover itself has to say. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is standing by the Chair and will have heard his remarks. I am sure that the Secretary of State intends to respond fully as soon as we know exactly what the details are.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On new year’s eve, 40 people were arrested at a flat in Fulham in my constituency, following a serious knife attack nearby. The police told me that the flat had been rented out on an Airbnb-style let and then used for a party that attracted people from a wide area. The Government deregulated Airbnb lets in London; may we have a debate on re-regulating them to stop properties in residential areas being turned into hotels and hostels and, increasingly, becoming the focus of antisocial and violent behaviour?
Andrea Leadsom
I was not aware of the incident raised by the hon. Gentleman, but it sounds extremely concerning. I encourage him, perhaps in the first instance, to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can describe the exact incident that took place and hear Ministers’ direct response.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Around the time of the centenary of the Armistice, many of us had the privilege to attend events in this place and in our constituencies. After that, there were many programmes involving schoolchildren, and I hope that the Leader of the House can give us some time in which to debate the matter. I refer to a wonderful programme of Cefn Community Council, where research was undertaken by primary schoolchildren from Ysgol Cefn Mawr, Ysgol Rhosymedre and Ysgol Min y Ddol in order to provide information about each of the 130 fallen from their community. It is an extraordinary programme that is a credit to the community of Cefn and is something that we should mark in this House.
Andrea Leadsom
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating all those who were involved in this fantastic initiative. Bridging the gap between the generations so that young people understand the sacrifice of those who came before them is vital. All of us have enjoyed the amazing tributes paid by young people to those who fought and died during the great war.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House organise an urgent debate on incineration contracts? Gloucestershire County Council has just had literally pulled out of it the news that it has spent an extra £100 million on a half a billion pound contract at the Javelin Park project in the Stroud constituency. It cannot be the only local authority that is watching council taxpayers’ money just being burned on bad value for money. Will the Leader of the House order an urgent inquiry and a debate on the issue?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There are Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions next Thursday, so I encourage him to raise the matter then.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Is it not about time that the Government started to be straight and honest with the British public? The Prime Minister has continued to repeat that there is a Brexit dividend, despite the fact that we all know there is not a Brexit dividend and, indeed, the Government’s own figures show that there is not a Brexit dividend. May I unusually ask the Leader of the House for us not to have a statement and not to have a debate on the Brexit dividend, because it does not exist?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about the issue of economic forecasting that presupposes different alternatives. In my view, economic forecasting is only as good as the inputs into the forecasting model. Although he says that there is not a Brexit dividend, the fact that I would rely on is that once we have left the European Union, we will no longer be paying the billions of pounds in net terms that we were previously paying to the European Union.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
In the week before Christmas, my local food bank in Penge gave out 300 parcels to some of the most vulnerable. It is an outrage that at a time of year when most people are out celebrating, Tory austerity has meant that far too many rely on food banks for essential supplies. Can we please have a debate on the impact of Tory austerity on food bank usage and food poverty across the country?
Andrea Leadsom
Let me first pay tribute to all those who help out with food banks, either by donating to them or by running them; they do an amazing job in all our constituencies. The hon. Lady is right to point out that we absolutely do not want people to have to rely on food banks. However, there are now 630,000 fewer children living in workless households, and the numbers both of people and of children in absolute poverty are at record lows, with 1 million fewer people and 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty at a time when income inequality is also down and lower than at any time under the last Labour Government. We are building a fairer society, jobs are growing and wages are rising faster than inflation. These are all very good things and are to be welcomed.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
How is it in the interests of our constituents that this House is prevented from expressing its views on an issue as important as Brexit? Does the right hon. Lady see her role as Leader of the House as ensuring that the Government can prevent this House from expressing its view in that way?
Andrea Leadsom
I think it is absolutely vital that the House gets the opportunity to express its view, which is why we have five days of debate prior to the meaningful vote.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
One of my constituents who has worked all her life had to take a part-time job, leading her to access benefits for the first time. Imagine her surprise when she was paid a week early before Christmas so that the company’s head office could close for Christmas, but then lost £250 of universal credit. This goes against the grain of the Government’s mantra of making work pay. Can we have a statement saying what the Government are going to do about this anomaly in universal credit, and will they look at these individual cases?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman often raises constituency cases, and he is absolutely right to do so. If he wants to write to me about that case, I can take it up with the Department for Work and Pensions on his behalf. I am certainly aware that that is not the intention. The point about universal credit is that it allows for flexibility in benefit payments to people whose job circumstances change. But if he will write to me on the individual circumstances, I can take it up for him.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I know that the Leader of the House will be as concerned as I was this morning about some of the findings of the Environmental Audit Committee report showing that there were higher levels of hunger among our children than in most other countries in Europe. In Hull, we are pioneering the 50p school meal, jointly subsidised by Hull City Council and schools, but it is now under threat because of the cuts to school budgets and is having to go up to £1. May we please have a debate on whether austerity really has ended in some of the most disadvantaged parts of this country?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is quite right that I share her concern about any child going hungry. I know that this is a long-standing and intractable issue, particularly during school holidays. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who has long tried to seek the opportunity for school lunches to continue even during the holidays. It is a very important issue. However, I would draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that with the increase in our economy—the real rises in wages, the growing number of jobs, and universal credit, which makes sure that benefits are not withdrawn as people increase their working hours—the opportunities for people to increase their earnings are now there more than ever before. We are seeing that the result of that is a decrease in absolute poverty and a decrease in the number of workless households, and therefore a decrease in the number of children being raised in workless households, all of which are very good things in our society.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The all-party parliamentary group on home electrical safety will shortly publish the results of a consultation on the need for better regulation of online sales. Websites such as Amazon, Wish.com and eBay are not doing enough to prevent the sale of illegal and unsafe goods to UK customers. Shockingly, Wish.com is openly selling zombie knives and knuckledusters without any checks on the age of the buyer. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on better regulation of online sales?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I know that Members right across the House would wish to see more done to stop online sales being a free-for-all. She raised a particular point about zombie knives being sold online. She will be aware that that will be made illegal under the Offensive Weapons Bill, and I encourage her to raise that point specifically with Ministers during its remaining stages in this House.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Before Christmas, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on Yemen, and told her about my constituent, Jackie Morgan, whose daughter had been kidnapped in 1986 and was now trying to flee from Yemen. I am grateful for the help that the Government have given so far, particularly the Middle East Minister, who has been very helpful indeed. However, now that she has got out of Yemen, there is also the issue of her husband, who is with her and who wants to travel to the UK with the family, understandably. Will the Leader of the House encourage her Home Office colleagues to step up to the plate as her Foreign Office colleagues have done to help this family?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very glad to hear that there has been progress for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I say again that Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe, and the UK is fully committed to doing everything it can to support resolution there. I would encourage him to raise this directly at Home Office questions on 21 January, or if he wants to write to me, I can take it up on his behalf.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Irn-Bru carnival at the Scottish Event Campus in Glasgow has been running autism-friendly sessions, which encouraged people with autism to enjoy all the fun of the fair over the festive period. There are good initiatives elsewhere in Glasgow to help people with autism and their families, such as a dedicated space within the St Enoch Centre. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those involved? Can we have a debate to encourage other businesses right across these islands to put in place similar measures?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly join the hon. Lady in congratulating all those involved. It is vital that we all get a better understanding of the challenges for people with autism, so that we can fully appreciate their strengths as well as the problems they face in dealing with everyday life. I would absolutely encourage other businesses to take up similar initiatives.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Could we have a statement to clarify the position with regard to WASPI women who are submitting maladministration claims? The recent referral to the High Court has led to my constituents receiving letters saying that their cases have been closed, yet the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has confirmed that those cases that relate to communication have merely been put on hold. That is causing massive confusion for a group of women who have already suffered from communication problems.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point that clearly needs to be raised directly with Ministers. If he writes to me, I can take it up with them, or he might like to seek an Adjournment debate, so that he can talk directly to them.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Over the Christmas period, I was contacted by many constituents who shared with me horrific and disgusting images of foxes being slaughtered in hunts. I do not know whether there is a loophole in the legislation or just a flagrant disregard for it, but we urgently need a debate on how the Hunting Act 2004 is working and whether it needs reviewing.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. The Hunting Act is clear that hunting should be restricted to trail hunting, and it is vital that the police uphold the law. He might like to seek a Back-Bench business debate, so that Members can share their concerns.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
New research from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre has shown that my constituents in Inverness and Nairn alone are paying £1 million a year more due to unfair delivery surcharges. Can we have a statement on when the Government will finally act to end that scandalous rip-off?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman has raised that in the Chamber before, and he is quite right to do so. That is completely unfair, and I encourage him to seek the opportunity to raise it directly with Ministers, so that they can respond to his request.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is today meeting the Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. Could the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will raise the concerns already raised by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the resumption of Japanese whaling? Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a statement in the House as soon as possible, to give feedback as to the Japanese Government’s response to those concerns?
Andrea Leadsom
I cannot confirm exactly what the Prime Minister will be raising, but I am confident that she will raise that serious and concerning issue. We have DEFRA oral questions next week, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can find out then from Ministers what was specifically discussed.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the event that the deal is voted down next Tuesday and there is a vote of no confidence, with the Opposition parties joined by those on the Government Benches who want a no-deal Brexit, what provisions do the Government have to avoid a no-deal Brexit by default—something the great majority of people in this place and certainly the great majority outside it do not want—during the period of the election, in terms of deferring or revoking article 50?
Andrea Leadsom
As I said earlier, this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, and if the official Opposition believe that not to be the case, it is for them to put forward a motion of no confidence under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The convention is that the Government will then give time for that to be debated. It is not for the Government to try to second-guess what the official Opposition would choose to do.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I was delighted when the Government legalised medical cannabis at the start of November. What has become clear, however, is that there are significant financial, bureaucratic and cultural barriers preventing consultants from prescribing. The system is not working. May we have a statement or a debate in Government time on how we can make it easier for people to access the medicine they need?
Andrea Leadsom
I think all right hon. and hon. Members were delighted when the decision was taken swiftly to make cannabis oil available to those who need it for medical purposes. Obviously, we need to have a period for this recent decision to bed down, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman perhaps to raise the issue at Home Office questions on 21 January to see when Ministers intend to review how the system is working.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Advice Nottingham’s new report on housing in my city has revealed that there are only 23 properties available with rents under local housing allowance rates, including only three three-bedroom houses. The local housing allowance is supposed to be supporting low-income families to rent, but it is not. May we please have a debate in Government time on the impact of the housing crisis on Nottingham?
Andrea Leadsom
I am genuinely sorry to hear that. The hon. Gentleman will obviously be concerned about the lack of housing available in his constituency. He will be aware that since 2010 the Government have brought social housing waiting lists down by over half a million and delivered many more council houses than was the case under the Labour Government. Nevertheless, we have huge ambitions to do more. We are putting in place measures to enable the delivery of more social and affordable housing, but he might want to seek an Adjournment debate to raise the specific issues for Nottingham.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On Sunday 6 January, President Sisi inaugurated Egypt’s largest Christian church a day after a deadly bomb blast near a Coptic church that killed a policeman and wounded two others. Efforts to promote tolerance are to be welcomed, but we must acknowledge that the situation on the ground for Christians in Egypt remains very, very dangerous. Christians were attacked multiple times in the past year, including the November 2018 terrorist attack where three buses carrying Christian pilgrims were ambushed, killing seven and wounding 19. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this issue?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman reports horrific occurrences. It is absolutely unacceptable that anybody anywhere is hounded, tortured, punished or bombed for the sake of their faith, race or gender. He is right to raise this issue, as he often does in this place. Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions are on 22 January. I encourage him to raise it then.
Bill Presented
Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christine Jardine, supported by Catherine West, Dame Caroline Spelman, Tim Farron and Sir Edward Davey, presented a Bill to make provision for certain asylum seekers to be granted permission to work; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 313).
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
May I begin on a personal note, Mr Speaker? I am very, very grateful to Members on both sides of the House, from all parties, who very kindly contacted me or sent messages over the course of the Christmas holidays following my son’s accident. I am very grateful for the kind words that many sent. My son is recovering well and I just wanted to register my appreciation.
A second brief point I want to make is that I want to ensure that as many colleagues as possible have the opportunity to intervene during my remarks. I recognise that we will be addressing a number of important issues today, not least the vital importance of maintaining environmental protection and the protection of workers’ rights, but I also recognise that many colleagues wish to speak, so I will try to keep my answers as brief as possible.
It is perhaps appropriate, Mr Speaker, given that this is a debate on European matters, that we should be emulating what happens in European football competitions by having a second leg of this debate following the first one. In hotly contested European matches, strong views are sometimes held, not just about the merits of each side, but about the referee, but all I want to say is that I am personally grateful to you, Mr Speaker. You sat through the whole of the first leg of this debate and intend to sit through the second, which is an indication of how important this debate is and how seriously you take your responsibilities. Across the House, we all owe you thanks for how you have facilitated this debate.
I also want to thank the many civil servants in my Department and elsewhere who have worked hard to secure the withdrawal agreement with the European Union. Officials, negotiators and others sometimes find themselves in the firing line but unable to speak for themselves, so let me speak for them: the dedicated public servants in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Exiting the European Union and other Departments have worked hard to honour the referendum result and to secure the best possible deal for the British people. I place on record my thanks and those of my Government colleagues for their wonderful work.
As everyone acknowledges, the deal that we have concluded is a compromise. Those who are critical of it recognise that there are flaws, and those of us who support it also recognise that it has its imperfections, but how could it be otherwise? There are more than 600 Members, all with different and overlapping views on Brexit and its merits, and on how it should be executed. Some 17.4 million people voted to leave—a clear majority—and we must honour that, but we must also respect the fact that 48% of our fellow citizens voted to remain, and their concerns, fears and hopes also have to be taken into consideration.
We are dealing in this negotiation with 27 other EU nations, each with legitimate interests, with which we trade and many of whose citizens live in this country. We consider them our friends and partners in the great enterprise of making sure that a rules-based international order can safeguard the interests of everyone. Inevitably, then, we have to compromise. I recognise that during this debate many principled cases for alternatives will be advanced. I will respect, and have respected, the passion and integrity with which those cases are made, but it is also important to recognise that those who support this compromise, including me, are passionate about delivering on the verdict of the British people in the referendum in a way that also honours the interests of every British citizen. That is what this agreement does. It honours the referendum result while also respecting the vital interests of every part of the United Kingdom and every citizen within it.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The difficulty is that we do not know the extent of the compromise because negotiations on the future agreement have yet to begin, and because we will have paid the money upfront and will be unable to walk away from these negotiations, so we will be in a weak position. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me about the level of compromise that is likely to be made?
Michael Gove
I very much take on board my right hon. Friend’s point. As I will explain in greater detail in my remarks, I think we are in a far stronger position than many allow. The £39 billion that we will be giving to the EU is in part settlement of our obligations and in part a way of ensuring we have a transition period so that we can adjust to life outside the EU. The backstop that has been negotiated—let us all remember that originally the EU wanted a Northern Ireland-only backstop, but we now have a UK-wide backstop—allows us, as a sovereign nation, freedom in critical areas. These are freedoms that honour the referendum result and create real difficulties for European countries, which I will explore in greater detail in a moment.
It is critical that we recognise that the agreement the Prime Minister has negotiated will mean that we will be outside the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, outside the common fisheries policy, outside the common agricultural policy, outside the common foreign and security policy and outside the principle of ever closer union, and that we will have control of our borders and our money. The days of automatic direct debits from this country, at whatever level people might think appropriate, will end, and as a result the referendum verdict will be honoured.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier, the Secretary of State said that the deal laid out by the Prime Minister was a good deal for everybody in the UK. Can he seriously stand at that Dispatch Box and say that our friends in Northern Ireland are getting a good deal out of this deal?
Michael Gove
I absolutely can. One of the opportunities that the citizens of Northern Ireland would have as a result of the deal is unimpeded access not just to the rest of the UK market, which is essential for the maintenance of our Union, but to the rest of the EU. That is why the Ulster Farmers’ Union, Ulster business and so many in Northern Ireland’s civil society have said that, with all its imperfections, the deal protects not only the integrity of the UK, but their livelihoods, jobs and futures.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Ulster Farmers’ Union. Has he had time today to see the letter written by the presidents of all four farmers unions to every Member setting out quite clearly why no deal would be so damaging to the interests of rural communities?
Michael Gove
I have read that letter. It has been sent to every Member, and I would ask every Member to give it close attention. Our farming communities, like our country, were split over whether to leave. A majority of farmers voted to leave, recognising the opportunities that being outside the CAP would present, but I have yet to meet a single farmer who believes that a no-deal Brexit would be the right option for this country when the withdrawal agreement in front of us provides the opportunity for tariff-free and quota-free access for agricultural products to the EU.
I will say a bit more about the specific challenges of a no-deal Brexit. It is an intellectually consistent position, but it is important, even as we apprise it and pay respect to its advocates, that we also recognise the real turbulence that would be caused, at least in the short and medium term, to many of our farmers and food producers.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I find myself in agreement with the Secretary of State about the risks and dangers of a no-deal Brexit, but his claim that people will be better off flies in the face of the Government’s own economic analysis, which suggests that people will be poorer, the economy smaller and economic growth slower. How can he stand at the Dispatch Box and say something the Government have found to be otherwise?
Michael Gove
The report emphatically does not say that people will be poorer. It is important to pay proper respect to projections while also applying the appropriate analytical tools. Some of the economic projections for no deal and Brexit have proved to be unfounded. Projections have been wrong in the past and may well be wrong in the future, but it is the case—here I do agree with the hon. Lady—that, irrespective of projections for different paths, there are certain brute and unalterable facts about no deal, including the imposition of tariffs by the EU, that would create friction and costs, and that would mean, at least in the short term, economic turbulence for parts of the UK economy.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend welcome the great news from the port of Calais that it will not create any barriers and that our trade will flow perfectly smoothly if we just leave the EU on 29 March, and the news that there will be aviation agreements so that planes will of course fly quite normally? Does this not show that “Project Fear” is just a caricature of itself and a disgrace in seeking to sell us short and to lock us into something we have agreed to leave?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes two very important points. It is absolutely right that there have been some lurid and exaggerated stories, both during the referendum and subsequently, about the impact of certain Brexit scenarios, and he is absolutely right that in aviation and the commitments of some of our partners who manage ports there have been welcome signs. It is also important to recognise, however, that the European Commission has made it clear that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, there will be 100% checks on products of animal origin and live animal exports, which will add significantly to friction.
Tariffs would also be imposed, and while overall tariffs on agricultural produce in the EU are around 11%, which can be discounted by changes in the valuation of sterling, it is also the case that the import duties on some products, such as sheep meat, are more than 40%, and in some cases considerably more. That would certainly impose costs on our farmers and food producers. They are resilient, imaginative, energetic and dynamic, and in the long term, of course, they will flourish, but these are undeniable short-term costs.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to listen to the likes of GE Aviation, which employs a lot of people in my constituency and says that a
“disorderly ‘no deal’ exit…would prevent…challenges for our operations, supply chains and customers”,
and exhorts me and others to ratify the withdrawal agreement, which would
“provide business with the certainty it needs”?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Again, across business there was a range of voices —for remain and leave—during the Brexit referendum, but what is striking is that many prominent voices among those who argued that we should leave have also made it clear that they believe that a no-deal Brexit would be the wrong outcome. They see significant opportunities for Britain outside the EU. Lord Wolfson, one of our most talented entrepreneurs in charge of one of our biggest retail chains, and Richard Walker, the chief executive of Iceland, one of our most dynamic and environmentally friendly supermarkets, both voted to leave the EU. They believe that to be the right choice for Britain and they both—employing thousands of our fellow citizens—also say that a no deal would pose significant challenges.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is a real optimist on Brexit. How long does he expect it will take to negotiate the political agreement and finalise all its details?
Michael Gove
I expect that that will be concluded by the end of the transition period.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not “Project Fear” when the National Farmers Union and all the agricultural unions warn of an embargo on animal product exports, which are currently worth £3.15 billion, in the event of no deal? In the case of the lamb industry, 94% of its exports go to the EU. This is not “Project Fear”; this is serious “Project Business”.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There have been some exaggerated claims about the impact of a no-deal Brexit, and the British economy is resilient. He is absolutely right, however, that farmers in some of our most vulnerable sectors, in constituencies that Members across this House represent, would be significantly adversely affected in the short term.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for quoting my constituent Richard Walker, who has highlighted the fact that the jobs of 24,000 employees at Iceland depend on frictionless trade and that it is really important to support a deal, because no deal would be catastrophic for not only Iceland, but Arla Foods and several other food producers in this country.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is always important to get things in proportion, but across the business spectrum—from those who argued for remain and for leave—there is a strong consensus that no deal would, in the short to medium term, cause significant harm.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. I want to pursue his argument about the sheep meat implications of a WTO-terms Brexit. He referred to the introduction of tariffs of more than 40%. Will he confirm that that would apply on day one of moving to WTO terms?
Michael Gove
Yes, I am afraid that it absolutely would, and a tariff of 40%—it is just above 40%—is one of the lower ones. For example, there are tariffs on some meat exports of more than 140%, and in one case there is a tariff of more than 200%.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Some people suggest that we could reject this deal and go back and get a better deal from Europe. Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about the great uncertainty in that, not least because the European Parliament shuts down in mid-April for the European elections, leaving many months in which no negotiation will be possible?
Michael Gove
Yes. As DEFRA Secretary, I suppose that I should say that a bird in the hand is worth more than however many we might find in the bush. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have negotiated hard and effectively. We have not secured everything that we wanted, but we have secured a great deal of what we wanted. Now is the chance—I think the country wants us to do this—to unite behind this deal across the House and to deliver on Brexit in a way that delivers for every citizen.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend mentioned live animal exports. Is it the case that if this agreement were to be approved, many of our constituents who want an end to live animal exports would find that that was not allowed?
Michael Gove
Not quite. Live animal exports on the island of Ireland would have to continue, but we could further restrict—and, if we wished to, even ban—live animal exports from GB to the rest of the EU.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. To continue the point about tariffs and sheep meat, the fact is that the situation that has been outlined could happen, so what specific preparations have been made? What contingencies, compatible with WTO rules, can be undertaken in the event that those tariffs come in so that we support our hill farmers and so on?
Michael Gove
That is a very fair point. One thing that occupies most of my time as Secretary of State for DEFRA is planning for various contingencies. In exceptional circumstances, there are market interventions that we can take to help this particular sector. The broader point is that whether we are in the EU or out, WTO rules on the level of state aid that we can give to farmers will bind our hands in any case.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has just mentioned state aid, particularly in agriculture. Is he not concerned that the deal allows the Commission oversight of state aid for four years post the transition period, and that with the Northern Ireland protocol, the Commission may have an overview of state aid in agriculture for ever? That would mean that if we wanted to diverge from the common agricultural policy, the Commission could prevent us from doing that. Is that not a reason to throw out this deal?
Michael Gove
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but that is a misunderstanding of the agreement. The entire United Kingdom could diverge from the common agricultural policy and introduce new methods of support—
Michael Gove
We absolutely could, including in Northern Ireland. Of course, there are restrictions on the amount of state aid that we can give, but those restrictions operate as a result of our membership of the WTO as well.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and I were both in Oxford last week for the farming conference, and indeed we had lunch together—[Interruption.] It was a very nice lunch.
Kerry McCarthy
Well, it was vegan, but the Secretary of State had cheese.
There is definitely a consensus that no deal would be absolutely disastrous for the farming community. The Secretary of State is totally focusing on the risks of no deal, and to me that is something of a red herring. We could easily avoid no deal—it is entirely in the Prime Minister’s power to avoid no deal either by extending or revoking article 50 if we get to that cliff edge. Can the Secretary of State now talk about the deal that is being put before us for the meaningful vote and try to persuade us of the merits of that deal, rather than talking about no deal?
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State might wish to describe to us his cheese selection and his salivation over it.
Michael Gove
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was happy to embrace my inner vegan with the hon. Lady earlier this month. We had some delicious vegan parsnip soup, and also some cheese that was produced by the Sustainable Food Trust.
I have sought to respond to questions from several colleagues about the impact of no deal, and I will say more about the merits of the deal in just a second. I will say, however, that it is not just within the power of the Government, but within the power of us all to ensure that we secure a deal. The hon. Lady is a constructive and pragmatic member of this House, and I know that she has concerns about the deal, but one of the best ways of avoiding no deal would be for her to join many other colleagues across the House in supporting the deal.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I have a small point for the Secretary of State before he explains the benefits of the deal, in his view. My savvy constituents like to participate in the biggest horse race event of the year, the Grand National, which this year is on 6 April, and being savvy, large numbers of them tend to bet on Irish horses. With no deal, can they be certain that Irish horses will get to the Grand National?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In the event of no deal, the tripartite agreement, which is part of EU law, falls. Of course, the bloodstock industry, the horse racing industry and others can take mitigating steps, but the current free movement of equines would be harmed, although it would be protected by this deal.
Michael Gove
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will try to make a little bit of progress. I am sure that there will be further interventions in due course.
Alan Brown
In the Secretary of State’s post-Brexit nirvana, there will be a different customs and trading arrangement with the EU from the one that exists just now, and that will be managed with no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Government have consistently said that that will be done with the use of new technology. What is the timeframe for the invention, trial and deployment of that technology, which will mean that there are no cameras and no infrastructure—no anything—on the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland?
Michael Gove
A lot of work has already been done—including by Members of this House, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh)—to point out how we can have a frictionless border and avoid checks at the border, so that we can move out of the backstop and into a new trade agreement with the European Union.
Today the focus of this debate is principally, although not exclusively, on the environment and on workers’ protection. It is important to put on record the work that has been done across this House while we have been in the European Union to protect our environment and ensure that workers have a brighter future. However, it is also important to stress that this country has had ambitions higher than those required by our membership of the European Union—ambitions that have been fulfilled in a number of areas.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), when he was Secretary of State in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, introduced climate change legislation that was significantly more progressive and ambitious than what was required by our membership of the European Union. On plastic and waste, this Government are going further than we are required to do by the European Union, to ensure that we pay our debts to this planet. Look at workers’ rights, holiday rights, maternity leave, maternity pay and the national living wage. In every single one of those areas, our ambitions have been higher than required by the European Union.
It is not the case that membership of the European Union is necessary to safeguard our environment or to guarantee high-quality rights for workers. This agreement makes it clear that we will apply a non-regression principle when it comes to workers’ rights, to health and safety and to employment rights. That principle, which will be very similar to the one that occurs in many other trade deals, will ensure that there is no race to the bottom. The Government will also—this is in the withdrawal agreement—create an office of environmental protection to ensure that our environment is safeguarded and that appropriate principles that were developed during our time in the European Union, such as the precautionary principle, are applied in an appropriate way.
However, there is a critical distinction between what the withdrawal agreement allows us to do and what the EU insists that we do. The withdrawal agreement allows us to take back control. The office of environmental protection will scrutinise this Government’s or a future Government’s application of environmental principles, but the House will decide how those principles are interpreted. For example, if we want to put the emphasis on innovation in certain areas in a different way from the European Union but still strive towards high environmental goals, we can. We can have both higher levels of protection and, critically—this was the message of the referendum—democratic accountability, with power flowing back to this place and all its Members.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the forthcoming environment Bill will establish a legal right for citizens of this country to take the Government to court if they fail on environmental standards?
Michael Gove
Yes, absolutely. It is important that citizens have the right to access not just the courts but other means to ensure that environmental rights are protected. The creation of that new watchdog, which of course will be democratically accountable, will ensure that citizens do not have to go to court, but the Government and other public bodies will be held to account for their actions in safeguarding the environment.
Michael Gove
Yes, it absolutely will be independent. There will be an opportunity for the House to engage in pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill that will give effect to that body.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is the Secretary of State not concerned that, if the deal delivers such a glorious future for the United Kingdom, all the other member states of the European Union will look enviously on it and the integrity of the European Union itself will be challenged? Everybody will want a better deal than membership, which we currently have and, by definition, has to be the best possible relationship with the EU.
Michael Gove
It will be for other countries to decide, but yes, I think other countries will be envious of our position. For the sake of argument, I think some Italian politicians will look at our ability to have quota-free and tariff-free access to their markets and yet to be outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, have full control of our borders and pay no money, and ask themselves, “Why is it that the UK has a better deal?” It will be for them to make their own judgments, but people under-appreciate the strength of the position that this deal puts Britain in for the future.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State mentions that we will move out of the orbit of the ECJ. Instead, for trade deals, particularly on fracking, we will be in the orbit of international investment tribunals. He may know that in the case of Lone Pine Resources, the Canadian Government were fined hundreds of millions of dollars for their moratorium on fracking in Quebec. Is he not concerned that, if we leave the defence of the European Court of Justice and try to restrict fracking, we will be open to attack by frackers? That would not be good.
Michael Gove
I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but robust legal protections, including licensing and permitting, will continue to ensure that hydraulic fracturing, if we have it, is governed by a set of rules that safeguard and balance the interests of the environment and the interests of property owners and those who wish to generate economic growth.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I want to go back to the Secretary of State’s point about Britain being the envy of other European states because of the position it will be in post Brexit. Is it his contention that the Brexit scenario we are currently going through has enhanced Britain’s international reputation?
Michael Gove
It is certainly the case that, if we look at the flow of individuals who want to come to Britain—[Interruption.] This is an important point. One of the critical questions about the attractiveness of our nation is how many people want to come here. The fact that so many people want to make a life in Britain is an indication of the strength of our position, and the significant investments by tech giants, Toyota and a number of others indicate that Britain continues to be an attractive destination not just for individuals but for investment.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
As a Scot who believes in the United Kingdom’s ability to take things forward, I am very much behind our moving from the EU, as voters requested in the referendum. In noting the good work on the environment that my right hon. Friend has championed, may I ask him to specify what opportunities this Brexit deal will create for us to leave a better environment for the generation that follows us?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have already said that we wish to embrace higher standards for plastic, waste and resources, but there is another big opportunity, which I know he is very keen on us taking as we leave the European Union—the opportunity to take back control of our exclusive economic zone and our fisheries, and to ensure that the environmentally damaging and economically wasteful common fisheries policy ends.
The Scottish National party, which has many talented Members, some of whom are in the Chamber, is committed—[Interruption.] I will not blight their electoral prospects by naming them and explaining how much I admire them. The SNP is committed to staying in the European Union and the common fisheries policy, in direct defiance of the Scottish Government’s own analysis, which points out that there could be billions of extra pounds and 5,000 extra jobs in the Scottish economy if we left the common fisheries policy. The leader of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation told the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs yesterday that he was suffering “foot-stamping frustration” at the Scottish Government’s inability to seize that opportunity.
Why do the Scottish Government want to stand in the way of 5,000 new jobs being created? Is it ideology? Are they placing separatism above the true interests of Scotland? [Hon. Members: “Always!”] I hear cries of, “Always” from Scottish Conservative colleagues. I fear that, despite my respect for our Scottish Government colleagues in so many ways, my Scottish Conservative colleagues are absolutely right. Those jobs will be created only if we embrace the opportunities of being outside the common fisheries policy.
It is not just in fisheries that jobs can be created. Outside the common agricultural policy, we will be able to embrace methods of productivity that improve our food and drink sector—our biggest manufacturing sector—and provide new jobs, new investment and new technology. It is also the case that, with environmental services and our energy, dynamism and innovation—including ultra low emission vehicles, which my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has championed consistently—we can turn post-Brexit Britain into an environmental and economic superpower.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I cannot wait to leave the European Union on 29 March, but I have deep concerns about the backstop in the withdrawal agreement. If we do not want to use the backstop and if, in the event that we do use it, it will be only temporary, why does he believe the European Union is reluctant to give the legal clarity that we and the Democratic Unionist party are looking for?
Michael Gove
I think the European Union and its institutions will provide more clarity, but let me try to provide an additional element of clarity. The backstop is uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable for me individually as a unionist, and it is uncomfortable for my friends in the House who represent Northern Ireland. However, it is important to recognise that the European Union originally wanted a Northern Ireland-only backstop. The Prime Minister pushed back against that. We now have a UK-wide backstop. Critically, as I mentioned, that creates difficulties for other European nations.
Immediately after the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement, we heard from President Macron. It was clear from his comments that he recognised how unhappy French fishermen and citizens in Brittany and Normandy would be if the backstop came into operation and they lost all—100%—of their access to UK waters as we took back control. We shall be able to say to France, to the Netherlands, to Denmark and to other nations, “I am afraid you are locked out of our waters” and at the same time, “but we have access to your markets without tariffs or quotas.” We shall be able to say, “Your citizens cannot come here except under our rules” and, at the same time, “We are not paying a penny for these privileges”—and, at the same time, “We are outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.”
European nations will say to the European institutions, “We thought that you were not going to allow cherry-picking. Why does Britain have this bowl of glistening cherries? We thought you would say that the Brits could not have their cake and eat it, but they are enjoying an array of privileges, access routes and opportunities, while at the same time not paying for them, not accepting our citizens and not allowing our boats into their waters.”
It will be the case—it is already the case—that entering the backstop will be seen by European nations and European politicians as a consummation devoutly not to be wished. That is why I am so confident that we will be able to secure an agreement, pursuing the principles of the withdrawal agreement, that will ensure that we have the free trade that we want and the control that the British ask of us.
Alan Brown
The Secretary of State spoke of cherry-picking, but he cherry-picks his own statistics when he talks about 5,000 possible new fishing jobs. The SNP was always opposed to the common fisheries policy and argued against it for many years. When it comes to cherry-picking, what does the Secretary of State say about the 80,000 post-Brexit job losses predicted by the Fraser of Allander Institute? What is he doing to address that?
Michael Gove
It is the case that, if the Scottish National party votes for the deal, we shall be able to secure jobs in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and also to secure those 5,000 additional jobs. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Scottish National party has said that it is against the common fisheries policy. However, while it has willed the end, it has not willed the means, which is leaving the European Union. The Scottish National party’s position is—how can one put this? To say that you want to leave the CFP but not to do anything about it, and to seek to frustrate the legislation that will allow us to leave the CFP, is inconsistent at best and a simulacrum of hypocrisy at worst.
John Redwood
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making it clear that in certain circumstances we would ban all continental European fishing vessels from our waters, but will he confirm that, when we take back control, the fish will be for our fishermen to land and process here?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend has made a very good point. In the event of leaving the European Union and in the event of the operation of the backstop, which neither of us wants to enter but we recognise of course is a possibility, we would have sovereign control over our waters. We could decide who came here and on which terms, and we could negotiate with other countries knowing that we were in a position of strength.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for what he has said so far. He will understand very well the position of the Democratic Unionist party in relation to the backstop, and he will know that my constituents clearly voted to leave. There are two matters about which we are concerned: the backstop and that control of fisheries will remain in our hands. There has been a question mark over that, too. The Secretary of State has been to Northern Ireland and met the MPs and the Unionist people, and he understands their opinion. May I suggest that what he needs to do now is remove the backstop? That is only way in which he will gain our support.
Michael Gove
I quite understand, and I have enormous respect not only for the hon. Gentleman, but for the sincerity and clarity with which he and his parliamentary colleagues have put their views. I hope that over the next few days we can help to ensure that all the interests of Northern Ireland are safeguarded more effectively than ever within the United Kingdom. As I have pointed out, the backstop is uncomfortable for many of us, but it is also uniquely uncomfortable for the European Union, which is one of the many reasons why I think we will conclude a deal before that.
Angela Smith
I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous in giving way. He talked about the sovereignty of British waters and about taking back control, but will he guarantee that in any negotiation for a trade deal with the European Union there will be no retaliation, and that the interests of the processing side of the fishing industry will not be sacrificed in return for sovereignty over British waters? The processing side is much bigger than the catching side, and it must not be sacrificed.
Michael Gove
That is a very fair point. Mr Scatterty, who represents seafood producers in Scotland, has been very clear about some of the opportunities presented by Brexit, but also about some of the other important points to be borne in mind.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
When I was in the Library doing my research for the debate, I came across a 2014 Government leaflet, produced of course by a Conservative Government, which states, under the heading “An influential voice in important places”—that was why Scotland should vote no—
“As one of the EU’s ‘big four’ nations, the UK is more able to protect Scottish interests in areas like agriculture and fisheries.”
May I ask the Secretary of State what has changed?
Michael Gove
Several things have changed since 2014. First, of course, there was a coalition Government then. Secondly, we have had a referendum in which the people of Scotland voted to stay in the United Kingdom, and another referendum in which the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. But one thing has not changed: the interests of Scotland’s farmers and fishermen are better protected by maintenance of the Union than by the separation that the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government want to see. We remain influential, not just in respect of our relationship with the EU27 but globally. We have a stronger voice in trade negotiations, a stronger voice in environmental protection, and a stronger capacity to protect and enhance the interests of Scottish citizens as one United Kingdom. That is why the people of Scotland voted to stay in that United Kingdom, and that is why our Union will endure.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
For how much money is the Secretary of State applying to the Treasury fund for fisheries protection in case the backstop has to come into force, or, indeed, we have to leave on a no-deal basis? My local fishermen who fish out of Berwick and Amble are concerned that there is already not enough fisheries protection in those waters, and there would need to be a great deal more to ensure that we did not end up with something like the cod wars all over again.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has made an important point. The Ministry of Defence, in which she served with such distinction, has a suite of new offshore patrol vessels—state-of-the-art fisheries protection vessels—and we are negotiating with both the Treasury and the MOD to ensure that the work of those vessels will be complemented by the aviation and technological capacity that will guarantee that our fishermen are properly protected.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making his case most powerfully. In relation to the backstop, I can confirm to him that those of us who speak to European politicians and diplomats know that they have no desire to see something that gives us a competitive advantage endure in perpetuity. Moreover, European law makes it very clear that the provisions of the treaties do not permit a backstop to be permanent.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be perfectly reasonable for us, with the assistance of the Attorney General, to seek further and better clarification of the definition of “temporary” in the protocol, which could be sensibly done, to reassure Members such as those from Northern Ireland who have legitimate but answerable concerns?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the case not only that the legal position is that the backstop must be temporary, but that European politicians do not want it to endure, for the reasons that he has outlined, explored and explained, and on which I touched earlier.
There are, of course, a number of alternatives to embracing the withdrawal agreement. Indeed, the Opposition have put forward not just one alternative but 16 in the lifetime of this Parliament. They believe, Tommy Cooper-style, that—just like that!—they can negotiate a new deal with the European Union in the next 70 days which would give us freedom to diverge in relation to state aid in a way that would give the UK a competitive advantage that the EU allows no other nation on earth, and which would at the same time allow the UK to be in a customs union. That would mean that the EU could not negotiate trade deals with other countries—this is Labour policy—without the UK’s agreeing to those trade deals, and therefore exercising a veto. No other country on earth has the ability to veto the EU’s own trade deals, but that is what the Labour party wants.
There are also a number of different depictions of some of the fantasy alternatives that have been suggested. They have been described as unicorns. I have to say that the official Labour party position is to chase a whole carnival of unicorns across the European plain, none of which are capable of being delivered. In a broadcast earlier today, the shadow Justice Secretary was asked 23 times what Labour’s position on Brexit was, and 23 times he was incapable of answering.
The Labour party has had 16 different positions, and they cannot ask a question that is put 23 times. They do have six tests, but what do those six tests mean? Well, let’s listen to the words of the shadow International Trade Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), when he was asked about those six tests. He summed them up pithily in a word which in Spanish translates as “cojones” and in English rhymes with “rollocks.” I know, Mr Speaker, that there are some distinguished citizens in this country who have put on their cars a poster or sticker saying “Bollocks to Brexit”, but we now know from Labour’s own Front Bench that its official Brexit position is “bollocks.” [Interruption.] I am quoting directly from the hon. Member for Brent North, and I am sorry that he is not in his usual position, because it is not the role of the Government to intervene in how the Opposition dispose of their positions but I have to say that the shadow International Trade Secretary is a jewel and an ornament to the Labour Front Bench: he speaks the truth with perfect clarity, and in his description of Labour’s own policy may I say that across the House we are grateful to him—grateful to the constant Gardiner for the way in which he has cast light on the testicular nature of Labour’s position?
Sir Edward Davey
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you made a new ruling on parliamentary language that I am not aware of?
Mr Speaker
I have made no new ruling on parliamentary language. I was listening, as colleagues would expect, with my customary rapt attention to the observations of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I richly enjoyed those observations and particularly his exceptionally eloquent delivery of them, which I feel sure he must have been practising in front of the mirror for some significant number of hours, but on the subject of that which is orderly—because a number of Members were chuntering from a sedentary position about whether the use of the word beginning with b and ending in s which the Secretary of State delighted in regaling the House with was orderly—the answer is that there was nothing disorderly about the use of the word; I think it is a matter of taste.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I always enjoy the Secretary of State’s contributions from the Dispatch Box; he speaks with so much enthusiasm that I almost fall into the trap of thinking he actually believes what he is saying. On people saying things that are accurate, may I remind him of the things his campaign, Vote Leave, said during the leave campaign? It talked about state subsidy for steel; does he really believe in that? It talked about reversing changes to tax credits, expanding regional airports, more roads, new hospitals, hundreds of new schools and more places in them, raising pay for junior doctors, new submarines, maintaining all current EU spending—and that was alongside the £350 million per week for the NHS. When it comes to making promises that are questionable, the right hon. Gentleman has got an A-level.
Michael Gove
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman talks about A-levels, because if the hon. Member for Brent North is my favourite Labour Member, he must be my second favourite as he has just run through a list of many of the policies that this Government have delivered. We have delivered more outstanding school places—more than 1.8 million children are in good and outstanding schools compared with 2010. We have delivered a pay rise for junior doctors and others in the NHS. We have created new hospital places. We have created hundreds of thousands of new jobs. I will be very happy to see the hon. Gentleman feature in the next Conservative party election broadcast as he runs through the achievements that this Conservative Government have delivered in the national interest.
John Mann
We can all manage a rhetorical flourish, the right hon. Gentleman better than most, but does he not agree that part of the problem we have had since the referendum is that his side and this side are spending the vast majority of their time on the rhetoric and repeating the arguments, rather than focusing on the critical issue of what we are going to be doing next? May I put it to him that this is probably not the time for rhetorical flourish, but that instead it is the time for serious discussion?
Michael Gove
That is a great question from the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, and who has taken a brave and principled position on Brexit as on every issue he has faced as a Member of this House. It is right that we hold up to scrutiny some of the alternatives that are put forward, in order to say that they are not realistic and not deliverable so that we can focus on what is realistic and deliverable. He also makes the important point that Brexit creates opportunities for this House to reshape policy in a number of areas. Many people outside this place, whatever their view of the original referendum result, now want us to focus on dealing with the challenges but also on exploiting those opportunities.
I want to say one thing briefly, however, about an attempt by some Members of this House, in all sincerity, to put forward a case that would mean that instead of focusing on the opportunities and dealing with the challenges we would simply be rerunning the arguments of the past, and that is the case for a so-called people’s vote—a second referendum in other words. There are people I really like and respect who put forward this case so I hesitate to put the contrary case, but I have to, because if we were to embark on a second referendum, we would spend months in this House debating how to construct that second referendum, and there is no consensus about what the question should be.
Every single Member of this House who argues for a second referendum had previously argued to remain, so if this House supported a second referendum it would be seen by many people as an attempt by those who lost to rerun the contest, and the inference that many would draw is that we did not have faith in their judgment and in our democracy—that we thought they were somehow too foolish, too stupid, too prejudiced to make an appropriate decision. That would do real damage to our democracy, and far from allowing us in this House to concentrate on the NHS, education, the environment and jobs, I am afraid people would see this as not just an exercise in protracted navel-gazing but a thumbing of our nose at the British people. That is why I believe that this is profoundly dangerous and playing with fire in our democracy. I have enormous respect for many of those who make the case and I understand their motivation, but I ask them to use their considerable energy and intellect to focus on making sure that Brexit can work in the interests of their constituents, rather than on attempting to say to their constituents, “You got it wrong.”
Chris Bryant
Every single Minister I have spoken to privately outside the Chamber has said to me that the vote is going to go down on Tuesday. Every single Minister has then said to me, “And then we’ll bring it back a second time.” Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that if the Government lose on Tuesday they will not bring it back to this House a second time? Otherwise everything he has just said would be a pile of nonsense, wouldn’t it?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is one of those people who is a supporter of a people’s vote and for whom I have enormous respect, and he is a keen student of this House and its procedures. We all have an opportunity and a responsibility to think hard about the decision we will take next Tuesday. If we do vote to support the withdrawal agreement, imperfect as it is—it has flaws in my eyes and in his—we will nevertheless then be able to secure a Brexit that works in everyone’s interests. That is why between now and next Tuesday evening all I am focusing on doing is talking to the hon. Gentleman and other Members of this House to convince them of the merits of this agreement. That seems to me to be, following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), the single most important thing I can do.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has been speaking for 50 minutes now and has just said he wants to talk to people to convince them to vote for the Government’s withdrawal agreement. Can we hear a little bit about that, please?
Michael Gove
I have in response to questions from a number of colleagues pointed out the many advantages that the withdrawal agreement secures.
Michael Gove
I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman twice; I may do so again, but the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) has made an important point.
We are out of free movement. One of the principal concerns the British public had long before the referendum was that unrestricted free movement meant we could not control who came here on terms that the British people could determine. If we vote for the withdrawal agreement we take back control of our migration policy and can exercise it in the interests of the British people in a way that both safeguards—
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Gove
Not at the moment.
We can do that in a way that both safeguards our economy and ensures we can have a humane policy on asylum. It is also the case that we will have tariff and quota-free access—as near frictionless as possible access—to the European market for goods and agri-food, and that will mean jobs will be protected and preserved across the country, and the competitive advantage that so many of our companies have will be enhanced.
The European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in this country will end, and that means that we can choose to diverge in a huge number of areas. Services account for 80% of our economy and that figure will increase, so a growing part of our economy will be completely outside the control of the EU and its new laws. We can choose to diverge in ways that will increase our competitiveness as well as supporting people in work. We talk about workers’ rights, and they are critically important, but the most important workers’ right is the right to a job. This withdrawal agreement not only safeguards existing jobs in manufacturing but ensures that new jobs in our economy can be created in a way that reflects the dynamism of the British people.
With respect to Northern Ireland, if the EU wishes to impose new rules on it, we will have the opportunity to say no to those rules. It is critical that people appreciate that we have that power within the backstop. We will be outside the common agricultural policy, with an opportunity to have a new system of agricultural support that makes farming more productive and at the same time safeguards the environment. We will also be outside the common fisheries policy, with the opportunity to create thousands of new jobs and embed higher environmental standards.
Michael Gove
No, I will not.
I respect the views of many Members of this House, and I know that I will have to stand down—sorry, sit down—in just a second to ensure that everyone has their say in this debate. I know that there will be speeches, as there have been throughout the debates, that will be compelling and heartfelt and that reflect the honest grappling with difficult issues that all of us have had to face.
Michael Gove
No, I will not.
However, 17.4 million people were told in that referendum campaign that their vote would be honoured. They were told unambiguously, “What you vote for, the Government will deliver.” We have an obligation to honour that mandate. Our other obligation is to do that in a way that safeguards the interests of the British people. All of us might have a perfect version of Brexit—a change here, an alteration there—but we all have to accept our responsibility next Tuesday to decide whether we are going to honour that verdict. Are we going to make the perfect the enemy of the good? Are we going to put our own interpretation of what Brexit should be ahead of the votes of 17.4 million people, ahead of the interests of everyone in this country who has a job, and ahead of the clearly expressed democratic will of the British people? Are we going to endanger their future by either seeking to overturn that mandate or rejecting this agreement and entering what the Prime Minister has suggested would be uncharted waters?
As I pointed out earlier, if we reject this agreement—the current course on which Parliament is set—and have no deal, Britain will of course prosper eventually but it is undeniably the case, because the facts on the ground demonstrate it, that our citizens and constituents will face economic turbulence and damage. That is why, after long reflection, I have decided that we must back this agreement. We must ensure that the British people’s vote is honoured, that their futures are safeguarded and that Britain can embrace the opportunities that our people deserve. That is why I commend this agreement to the House.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
I was relieved to hear that the Secretary of State’s son is making an excellent recovery. I am sure that many Members were shocked when they heard about the accident.
We are here today to debate environmental protections following Brexit. We are at a critical time for the future of Britain’s environment and the Government must be ambitious when it comes to protecting our environmental standards; otherwise, we could sleepwalk into an environmental crisis. Unfortunately, the withdrawal agreement does not contain a whole lot of action or ambition. The Government should commit today to strong, enforceable and measurable targets that go even further on environmental standards. We want to see no backsliding, only progress. The onus is on the Secretary of State to get to work immediately to make good on his many promises and to deliver a better environment, post-Brexit.
Thanks to the Labour amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, Ministers have had to publish their draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill. While I welcome its publication, it falls far short of what we were led to expect. Again we have warm words with no substance to underpin them. The withdrawal agreement requires us to establish effective oversight and enforcement of environmental law. Enforcement therefore relies on having an independent and adequately resourced body or bodies to hold public authorities to account. There have been warnings that we are facing a “governance gap” for environmental protection, post Brexit. Nothing can replace the full powers now held by the EU and the European Court of Justice, but a powerful watchdog would make a real difference, so it is disappointing that the proposed office for environmental protection will lack teeth and will not be directly accountable to Parliament. It must be able to enforce the law and it must be properly resourced. We need an environmental watchdog with real power, independence and scope. The office must hold Ministers to account, not do their bidding.
The Government’s track record on the environment has been woeful. They have repeatedly failed to tackle toxic air, they have given the green light to fracking and they have pushed ahead with Heathrow expansion regardless of the environmental impacts. Labour has pressed the Government repeatedly on the need to enshrine crucial environmental principles, such as the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, into domestic law. I am pleased that these are in the draft Bill, and I am glad that Ministers have recognised their importance, but will the Secretary of State tell us whether the principles, as drafted, are legally enforceable, and what will need to be included in the national policy statement to interpret their application? He often repeats the mantra that the Government intend to leave our environment in a better state than they found it, but we need to know how the draft Bill will deliver this, with legally binding, ambitious and measurable goals and plans.
There are serious questions as to how effective the proposed office for environmental protection will be if we accept imports with lower environmental standards. The Secretary of State is well aware that some of his colleagues are pushing ahead with plans to open us up to lower-quality imported produce. Brexit cannot be used as an excuse to allow deregulation and the undercutting of our high standards. Will he give concrete guarantees that this cannot happen? Unlike the International Trade Secretary, who has dismissed concerns about chlorinated chicken, I do not see the prospect of importing food produced to lower standards as any kind of prize. The Secretary of State needs to stand up for Britain.
Kerry McCarthy
On that point about ensuring that there is no lowering of standards in any post-Brexit trade deals, will my hon. Friend be supporting my new clause 1 to the Agriculture Bill and a similar amendment that the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has tabled, to make absolutely sure that we do not see a lowering of standards for food coming into this country? As we saw at the Oxford farming conference last week, farmers certainly do not want that to happen either.
Sue Hayman
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. A number of amendments have been tabled to the Agriculture Bill and we are looking at them closely. Her new clause is important, and we are taking a close look at it. It would be useful to have a conversation with her about it at a later date.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The suggestion at the heart of what the hon. Lady is saying is that she has no confidence in the Labour party to champion the cause of the British people on workers’ rights or environmental standards. There should surely be a post-Brexit competition between Labour and the Conservatives on championing those causes, and any political party wanting to slash standards would be condemned by the British people. She should have more confidence in the Labour party.
Sue Hayman
I have absolutely no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
This is a crucial time. This is not about what Parliament votes against, but what Parliament actually stands for to make the decision happen. What will the Labour party do to enact the decision that was made two years ago?
Sue Hayman
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that my party does not believe that the agreement on the table is good enough. If it is voted down next week, as many in this House believe it will be, we should go back to the country and have a general election, so that my party can actually look forward to working for a better deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sue Hayman
I will make some progress, because many Members want to speak and the Secretary of State was generous with his time.
The Prime Minister said that the environment Bill will be world leading, so where is the duty and obligation within the agreement to reduce the UK’s global environmental footprint? Labour wants to see good-quality, affordable food available to all but that must not come at the expense of environmental and animal welfare standards, workers’ rights or societal protections.
Antoinette Sandbach
The managing director of Arlo Foods warned that a no-deal Brexit would see shortages of products and a sharp rise in prices, turning everyday staples like butter, yoghurt, cheese and infant formula into occasional luxuries. Does the hon. Lady therefore agree that, by voting against this deal, the Labour party risks that outcome?
Sue Hayman
Labour does not want no deal. We understand the risks that that would bring, which is why we are saying that if the Prime Minister’s deal is voted down next week, we should go for a general election. However, we also think that the Prime Minister has had nearly two years to negotiate this deal. She could have had something much better. It is unacceptable that we have so little after two years.
Patricia Gibson
On a point of clarification, if we get to the point where we have the general election that the hon. Lady and her party are seeking, would Labour’s position be to support or oppose Brexit?
Sue Hayman
Our position at the moment is to go for a general election so that we can negotiate an improved deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sue Hayman
I will make some progress because many people want to speak.
The Government have failed to put in place any measures in the Trade or Agriculture Bills to ensure that all food and agricultural products imported into the UK will be produced to standards equivalent to our domestic ones. We want British food production to go from strength to strength while protecting our precious natural environment, but that will not happen if Ministers insist on kowtowing to Donald Trump.
On our future relationship with the EU, what mechanisms do the Government intend to put in place to enable continued co-operation on all environmental issues, from biodiversity to collaboration on tackling climate change? Will we continue to participate in the European Environment Agency and the European Chemicals Agency?
Geraint Davies
On standards, is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that, if we do Brexit, rather than negotiating with the US as part of team EU, which is a big conglomerate, we will be in a much weaker position on food standards, chlorinated chicken and so on? Indeed, I made the point to the Secretary of State about frackers being able to sue us because we will be outside the orbit of the European Court of Justice.
Sue Hayman
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is critical that we do not allow our standards to fall.
Vicky Ford
Like me, the hon. Lady wants to maintain environmental standards, to have high animal welfare standards and to continue co-operation with Europe on chemicals, for example. However, unless there is a withdrawal agreement, the EU has made it clear that we cannot make progress on the future relationship to agree to such things. Will she please confirm why Labour will not support the withdrawal agreement? We cannot get on with other negotiations without it.
Sue Hayman
I think we have made it pretty clear why we are not supporting the withdrawal agreement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) made that quite clear in the debate yesterday and I do not want to get into all those arguments again when they have already been clearly expressed on the Floor of the House.
Chris Bryant
The point is that this is about not just the withdrawal agreement, but the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The political declaration is so imprecise that it could mean absolutely anything to anybody. There is no security treaty, which is what the Prime Minister was demanding, and there is no surety as to what we will have on the European arrest warrant. That is why we cannot support what is frankly a pig in a poke.
Sue Hayman
Absolutely. My hon. Friend puts the argument in a nutshell. The political declaration contains only one paragraph referring to protecting rights and standards, which just shows how low down the list of priorities they are for the Government.
What do the Government have planned to replace current EU funding for nature conservation, low-carbon infrastructure, and environmental research and innovation? We also await the return of the Fisheries Bill on Report, so how do the Government intend to safeguard and manage our marine environment, protecting our healthy seas and sustainable fish stocks? British wildlife is also in freefall, so we need the Government to set ambitious and measurable goals to provide certainty for the future of our natural world. We need an action plan and an ambitious timescale in which to deliver the environmental protections that we so desperately need. We need legally binding targets to guarantee that Britain’s high environmental standards cannot be threatened.
It is also essential to keep in step with the EU on environmental standards post Brexit and we need to use the status quo as the starting point. We must not pick and choose which standards to apply—we need all of them. We cannot have divergence on standards or weaker arrangements than those that we currently uphold. We must ensure that the rights enshrined in law are not just principles. The work of the European Union and its institutions has enhanced Britain’s environment for decades and experts are saying that the Government’s proposals are, unfortunately, riddled with loopholes and undermined by vague aspirations that simply do not go far enough in tackling the challenges we face. Environmental organisations do not believe that the withdrawal agreement or the draft environment Bill, as they currently stand, will even scratch the surface when it comes to leaving the environment in a better state. The end result has been watered down and fails to match the powers held by the EU and the European Court of Justice. How does the Secretary of State intend to rectify that?
We also need future environmental policies that go together with a comprehensive future food policy, protecting and enhancing our environment while improving farm productivity and ensuring that we have a stable supply of high-quality British food. Brexit risks setting the UK back, despite all the progress made on environmental protections through our membership of the EU, and the environment Bill presents an opportunity to mitigate those risks. However, that will happen only if the Government go back to the drawing board to ensure that the Bill is stronger and more ambitious and that it fulfils the aspirations previously set out by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.
The state of Britain’s environment is at a historic crossroads and Brexit cannot be used as an excuse to veer off towards a future of lowered standards that would put our environment at risk. We need to build on the progress we have made so far, which means the Government must set out a robust action plan detailing exactly how they will leave the environment in a better state than they found it. What has been laid before us so far does not do that, and it is therefore not acceptable to the Opposition. It is time for the Secretary of State to fulfil his warm words before Britain’s environment pays the price for his Government’s failure.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a privilege to be called to speak immediately after two important speeches from each of the Front Benches.
I campaigned in favour of Britain remaining a member in 1975. I was too young to vote, but I put leaflets through doors that clearly said we would remain a member of a common market of independent trading states and that nothing about our membership would in any way affect the sovereignty of this Parliament, of which I am proud to be a Member. Unfortunately, in the 40 years since that referendum, we have moved steadily away from that vision, with more and more power given over to Brussels. It is essentially for that reason that I voted against the Maastricht treaty when I was first elected to this place and that I campaigned to leave in the last referendum, in which I was proud to serve on the campaign committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s subsequent commitments in her Florence and Lancaster House speeches on the red lines that the Government cannot breach in our negotiations, and I fought the election on a manifesto making it clear that we are leaving the European Union and that that includes leaving the single market and the customs union.
The many benefits of leaving the European Union are summed up—as we were reminded by the Channel 4 drama on Monday, which had an interesting portrayal of the Secretary of State—by those three words: “Take back control.” There is no doubt that one of the referendum issues that featured in my constituency is immigration, as summed up in the “Taking back control of our borders” White Paper, but I am not opposed to immigration, which has brought great value to this country.
The farmers and horticulturalists I represent in Essex rely on immigrant labour, particularly seasonal labour, and I understand their concern that that should continue. Equally, like most farmers, as the Secretary of State said, the majority of them voted to leave because they embrace the idea of competing in world markets, being outside the CAP and, instead of being subsidised, receiving payment on the basis of their contribution to the public good, which is a far better system.
The ability for my right hon. Friend to set our policy in this area, as there will be such an ability for every other Secretary of State, is one of the great benefits of our gaining our freedom. That is one reason why I am not attracted to the Norway option that some have suggested, and that I understand my right hon. Friend has occasionally thought about. We on the Exiting the European Union Committee discovered in taking evidence from Norwegian parliamentarians that Norway is still bound by European regulations, and of course freedom of movement is one of those requirements.
The vote was essentially about sovereignty. It was a vote to remove the overall jurisdiction of the ECJ. My Select Committee colleagues and I have been to see Michel Barnier several times, and he is very clear that the Prime Minister’s red lines rule out the UK having membership of the European economic area or an agreement similar to those of Norway and Turkey. He told us that the only way in which the UK would not breach its red lines in continuing to have a relationship with the European Union is on the basis of an agreement like the one signed with Canada. He showed us a proposal that not only had a Canada-style trade agreement but had parallel agreements covering security, law and order co-operation and data transfer. Indeed, he set out a scenario almost identical to the one I would have described had I been asked what kind of relationship I wanted with the European Union.
The only problem was that of Northern Ireland and what would happen at the Northern Ireland border. The Prime Minister accepted that that was an insuperable obstacle, and she therefore made the Chequers proposal. I could not support that proposal principally because it maintained the common rulebook, which would mean still having to abide by EU regulations. The Government have shown a willingness to accept further lock-ins, and under amendment (p), tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), we would have to continue to accept EU regulations in employment law.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Amendment (p), which I support, does not say that we should automatically harmonise with the EU as it strengthens protections in these areas. What it says is that, when protections are strengthened, it will come back for this House to debate and vote on those issues. That means Parliament is still taking back control.
Mr Whittingdale
As I understand it, amendment (p) would require us to accept that all existing EU regulations in this area will be maintained. I do not necessarily say that I am in favour of removing any of those regulations, although it is ironic that, when we debated the Maastricht treaty back in 1992, one of the arguments made by the then Conservative Government under John Major was that we had obtained an opt-out from the social chapter and that we would not be bound by the European employment and social regulations. We were told that we had achieved a great prize. Interestingly, of course, it was accepted that we could be part of what then became the European Union without being part of the social chapter. The indivisibility of freedoms is applicable only when it suits the European Union, and not when it does not.
There are many things about the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration that I do not like. I do not like the fact that we appear to be signing up to paying out £39 billion without any guarantee on what the future arrangement will look like. I do not like the fact that the ECJ will continue to have a say for a considerable period—some 20 years. I do not like the trading relationship described in the political declaration, which seems to be based on Chequers and its continuing adherence to the common rulebook. However, all those aspects could be dealt with in the subsequent negotiations during the transition period, with the exception of money, which is in the withdrawal agreement. The future arrangements can be discussed during the transition period because they are part of the political declaration, which is not legally binding.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the money is not £39 billion? There is no cash limit, no agreed amount, in the agreement, and there are huge powers for the EU to keep sending us bills of an undescribed amount for decades. It will be a lot more than £39 billion.
Mr Whittingdale
I fear my right hon. Friend may well be right. He highlights the risk we run in making that commitment.
I am willing to accept an ongoing payment, so long as an eventual exit date is set out. I am willing to accept some continuing role for the ECJ on things like citizens’ rights. However, the problem is in the withdrawal agreement, which is legally binding and cannot be changed. I am afraid that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, it is the backstop. It is the fact that we would be locked into a customs union without any ability to leave it unless we obtain the agreement of the European Union. That makes trade agreements essentially impossible. One of the great opportunities of leaving the European Union is the opportunity to sign trade agreements with those countries that the European Union has been trying to sign trade agreements with for decades but has still not succeeded—China, Brazil, India, the United States of America, Indonesia—the countries that will be the biggest economies in the world over the course of the next 10 or 20 years.
Sir Edward Davey
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the EU signed a trade deal with South Korea, with Japan and with Canada, before many other nations in the world? The EU has actually led progress on these bilateral trade deals.
Mr Whittingdale
I was aware of that, which is why I did not include them, but the countries whose names I just read out are likely to be the five biggest economies in the world. We know that the EU has been trying to sign a deal with China and a deal with America, and has failed so far to do so, principally because it requires the agreement of every single member state, and we have seen how difficult that can be.
Also, of course, the provision of the backstop creates the one thing that the Prime Minister said she could never accept under any circumstances—a border down the Irish sea. If the Northern Ireland protocol and the backstop could be taken out of the withdrawal agreement and put into that basket of issues that we shall settle in the course of the transitional period, as part of the arrangement covering our future agreement for trade with the European Union, that would remove the problem. It is where it ought to be. It was always daft that the Northern Ireland border issue could be determined before we knew what was going to be in the future trade agreement. The Prime Minister herself has now accepted that, actually, over the course of the two years, it should be possible to find a solution that will allow free movement back and forth across that border, on the basis of technology, so the Government think that can be done in the next two years. If we could only get it out of the withdrawal agreement, we would then have the time in which we could demonstrate that it would never be necessary.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I operated a hard border in Northern Ireland for two years. We stopped every car, we searched every car, we checked every person. I absolutely believe it is perfectly possible for there to be free movement across that border, given willingness on both sides and the use of new techniques, particularly things like pre-registration and number- plate recognition. I think that border does not need to be hard.
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, when he was serving his country in Northern Ireland, we had to have controls on the movement of people because we were facing a serious terrorist threat. Nobody is suggesting controls on the movement of people now. There is no suggestion that we are going to need any measures of that kind. We are talking about the movement of goods.
I do not want to detain the House any longer because a lot of Members want to speak. As I said, the problem is that the backstop is in the agreement and the agreement cannot be changed once it is passed, because it is a legally binding undertaking. If only the Government could find a way of taking the backstop out and putting it into those issues that we will try to resolve over the course of the next two years, I would be happy—well, not happy, but willing perhaps—to support the motion on Tuesday. But unless that can be done, I am afraid that I cannot.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
May I start by saying to the Secretary of State that we were all distressed when we heard the news of his son’s accident over Christmas, and we wish him all the best for his recovery? We do, of course, enjoy the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box. That was a bravura performance—such a comedy turn. He referenced Tommy Cooper. I think of him more as a Frank Carson, because it’s the way he tells ’em, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The line that I enjoyed best—it was the way he told it—was the one where he said that the EU “will look on enviously at the UK with this Brexit.” That was the best killer line in that speech, because we can almost hear the shrieks of laughter coming across the North sea and the English channel as they observe the plight of this pitiful nation. They are not envious of us; they are feeling sorry for us because we have ended in this pitiful state. If any of them were even thinking of following the United Kingdom’s example, they will look at this chaotic Government and decide, “Never in a million years will we do that.” It is the best lesson to any other nation never, ever to engage in such an action.
I loathe the Government’s Brexit—I loathe it totally and utterly, from the self-defeating, isolating ugliness of the project to the all-consuming, chaotic humourlessness, to the disgusting way that they are treating the 3.6 million EU nationals who are among our friends, our colleagues and our family members. I despair at what we are doing. I will observe and look at their Brexit deal, but I see no redeeming qualities or features to what this Government are doing with this absurd Brexit. The fact that my country so overwhelmingly rejected this Brexit makes me despair even more of what this Government are doing.
The only reason, the Government tell us, that we should be supporting this paltry document is that it is better than a no deal. My big toe is better than a no deal; my broken finger is better than a no deal, but I am not asking the House to support either of these personal artefacts. What vision! What ambition! Vote for the Prime Minister’s deal because it is better than no deal! That is the only reason that we seem to be given, in successive speeches by Government supporters and Ministers, for why we should be doing this.
Huw Merriman
That is a gross generalisation. The reality is that 52% of this country voted to leave, and that is what this deal does. But also, importantly, 48% did not, and this deal will actually see us continue with our relationship with the EU, and in fact deepen it in many regards. [Interruption.] Security.
Pete Wishart
It does not even start to—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not need to address his points to me. I am beyond redemption. He should turn his attention to some of his hon. Friends and colleagues on his own Benches, and I invite him to do that. I think they are all thoroughly looking forward to his speech. His efforts may be more fruitful with them than they are likely to be with me, because I shall go on to explain why this deal is totally, absolutely and utterly unacceptable to me, to my constituents and to the vast majority of the Scottish people.
I have never seen another example where it has been the main policy intention of a Government to intentionally impoverish, with such chaotic abandon, the people they are notionally there to serve. When the history books judge this little period of British history, in the late teens in this century, they will only ever conclude that this is the greatest example of political, cultural and economic self-harm that has ever been committed by a nation unto a nation.
The fact that we have got to this point will be forever remembered as the greatest single failure of any modern Government in post-war history. And you remember why we are doing this—remember why all this started? [Laughter.] They laugh. A referendum. It was supposed to heal the divisions within the Conservative party on the issue of the European Union. Ten out of ten for that, Mr Speaker. What an absolute and resounding success. Not only have they further divided their rotten party, but they have gone and divided a nation and then taken that nation to the very brink. And now, of course, we observe the abyss on the other side of that brink, in all its grotesque horror.
If we look at the Brexit clock—
Pete Wishart
I was going to move on, but yes, I will give way to the hon. Lady because I quite like her.
Victoria Prentis
I am slightly confused. Does the hon. Gentleman object to referendums, or just the results of referendums?
Pete Wishart
This is where we are with the Conservatives, when they ask banal, stupid questions such as that. The hon. Lady asks me about the referendum. Let me tell her about referendums. We have had two referendums in Scotland. In the first referendum, the people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They like that. Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. We then had a referendum on EU membership, where the nation—the nation—of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain. We have not got what we wanted in this referendum, and that means that we have a nation completely and utterly alienated from what the Brexit Tories are doing to us. That is a difficult issue that, at some point, they will have to confront, just as, at some point, the Scottish people will have to make some sort of constitutional assessment of it, because this cannot stand. We cannot have a nation being taken out of a Union that it values and cherishes, against the national collective will of the people of that nation.
Pete Wishart
I give way to the chief Brexiteer, the newly sirred John Redwood.
John Redwood
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why a decision to withdraw from the European Union is nasty and inward looking, yet a decision to withdraw Scotland from the United Kingdom is the opposite?
Pete Wishart
I say candidly to the right hon. Gentleman that the EU referendum had at its very core—at its cold, beating heart—the case of isolationism and immigration. It was about stopping people coming to this country. That defined every single case for rotten Brexit—every reference was about ending freedom of movement, which is presented as the great prize of this deal and this Brexit. What Scotland wants to do is reach out to the world and be part of an international community, to demonstrate our internationalism and what our sense of community is about. There is the right hon. Gentleman’s type of nationalism and then there is my type of all-encompassing international solidarity.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
My area, the west midlands, is massively diverse. I have spent 10 years knocking on doors all over the midlands and all across Birmingham. The issue has nothing to do with immigration—it is to do with sovereignty. That is why people voted to leave. Come with me to the Black Country, Coventry or Birmingham, and speak to voters on the doorsteps. That is what they will tell you.
Pete Wishart
I almost wish that was true—that the debate had been about sovereignty and the great things this country could do. All I ever saw was the disgusting and nauseating posters about immigration; all I saw in the right-wing press was about that issue. Every time I went on a hustings with a Conservative Member of Parliament, it was all about ending freedom of movement and controlling immigration. That was all I heard. That was the repeated message, again, again and again.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Like me, and I presume everyone else in the Chamber, my hon. Friend got a begging email from the Prime Minister shortly before the first attempt to push this through. It listed the benefits of her deal and No. 1—top of the list of the Prime Minister’s reasons for supporting the deal—was, was it not, ending freedom of movement. Did my hon. Friend get a different set of priorities? Is it possible that the Prime Minister gave us a priority that we could not support at the top of the list and gave something different to those who now deny that the referendum was about ending freedom of movement?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely; I did get that correspondence from the Prime Minister. I do not know why we are even trying to debate and contest the fact as it has been said by the Prime Minister and everybody on their feet, including the Secretary of State: the great prize of this deal, of this Brexit, is ending freedom of movement. I will briefly come to the consequences of that; they are dire for my nation and for the businesses that depend on freedom of movement. This is absolutely appalling for the young people who will have their rights restricted.
I want to talk about the Brexit clock, which is interesting. Not only are we now at the cliff edge—the front wheels are actually starting to dangle over, yet the clown shoes are still pressing on the accelerator—but a no-deal Brexit is now a real possibility and the consequences are becoming reality as the Government try to run the clock down.
We know about the food shortages, the running out of medicines, the turning of the south-east of England into a giant lorry park and all the real possibilities of leaving without a deal, yet the Government casually prepare for it. They apply millions of pounds to try to deal with it. They talk about it as if it were a realistic prospect—“Don’t worry your little British heads about it. You’ll be absolutely fine if we leave without a deal.” A no deal may be the life’s work and ambition of some of the extreme Brexiteers in this Chamber, but there are dire consequences for the constituents we serve. Those Brexiteers may be indulging in their European Union departure fantasies, but our constituents will have to pay.
The House is absolutely right not to allow that. The vote on Monday evening was very important. It indicates to the Government, lest they did not know, that no deal is unacceptable to the vast majority of this House. I am looking at some of the Scottish Conservatives—not one of them voted for stopping a no deal and against exposing their own constituents to the prospect of the appalling things that would follow. For that, they will pay a heavy price.
Pete Wishart
I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will tell me why he is prepared to expose the constituents of Gordon to the prospect and possibility of no deal.
Colin Clark
Companies in Gordon are actually making preparations for Brexit. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to avoid no deal, he should get behind the Prime Minister and support her deal. That would be in the national interest. Let me ask him: what preparations are the Scottish Government, as a responsible Government of Scotland, making for the possibility of no deal? Are they doing anything?
Pete Wishart
I share an office with the Deputy First Minister; I have seen some of the things he has had to deal with and some of the consequences there would be for Scotland. I do not think the hon. Gentleman fully understands what is at stake. Does he understand the idea of food shortages or civil unrest? Police forces have been activated in this country to ensure that that will be contained and dealt with. Those are the prospects for his constituents, yet he is prepared to expose them to that.
I want to talk a bit about my nation; it is great that some Scottish Conservatives are here and so engaged in this conversation. My country wanted absolutely nothing to do with this.
Pete Wishart
I will make a bit of progress, then give way to the hon. Gentleman because I quite like him too.
We returned one Member of Parliament with a mandate to fulfil an EU referendum. Nearly every single one of Scotland’s Members of Parliament voted against the EU (Referendum) Bill; nearly every single one of Scotland’s Members of Parliament voted to ensure that we would not trigger article 50. When we were eventually obliged to have that referendum in Scotland, Scotland voted emphatically and overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union—62% to 38%, which is the most emphatic result in any of the nations of the United Kingdom.
David Duguid
I was waiting for the famous 62% figure, which is often repeated, to come up. Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that in the 2017 general election, 56% of Scottish voters voted for either the Conservatives or Labour, which, at the time at least, was committed to delivering on Brexit?
Pete Wishart
I have heard Conservatives do this before: they include the Labour party in the figures. If the hon. Gentleman knows what the Labour party’s intentions are with Brexit, he is a lot further down the road than I am. It is a bit disingenuous to include a clueless Labour party in those numbers.
We had the most emphatic vote in the United Kingdom, so we might think—as part of the family of nations and being asked to lead, not leave, the United Kingdom—that that vote would have been taken into account and acknowledged. In fact, the exact opposite has happened. Our remain vote has been contemptuously ignored and every effort to soften the blow to a remain nation has been dismissed, with every proposal binned before the ink was even dry. In the process, we are witnessing the undermining of our political institution with a power grab and the binning of conventions designed to protect the integrity of our Parliament. Then the Government had the gall to tell us four years ago that the only way Scotland could stay in the European Union was to vote no in our independence referendum. We now see the consequences of that.
We look at the example of independent Ireland where the weight of the EU has stood in solidarity and support of one of its members and backed it to the hilt. Compare and contrast that to dependent Scotland within the UK, whose views and interests have been ignored and whose institutions have been systematically diminished as a junior partner in this chaotic Union.
This is an exclusively Tory deal. This Brexit crisis was designed, administered and delivered by the Conservatives. Even with all the last-minute overtures they have made, they have taken no interest in working with others or properly consulting and considering the views of other parties or Governments across the United Kingdom. This chaos is theirs to own, and it will define the Conservatives for a generation. It is a Tory Brexit—forever and a day, they are now the Brexit Tories.
As for Labour, I am not even yet sure whether it is a party of Brexit or against Brexit. I know it has a new position today. [Interruption.] The Secretary State has actually scarpered off, as he usually does when the third party is on its feet. That is a massive disrespect, isn’t it? The third party is on its feet, and the Secretary of State scampers out of the House. That is so consistent with this Government.
Let me return to my friends in the Labour party, because I think this is the 17th position they have taken on Brexit. They have tried to create a policy of constructive ambiguity, and I am constructively ambiguous about their position. I presume that their view is still to respect the result, and that it is still their intention to take the UK out of the EU. I know I often refer to my Scottish Conservative friends, but if that is the case, it will be dire for Scottish Labour, which has been shown that if Labour supports Brexit, its support in Scotland will fall to 15%.
I have already mentioned immigration, and we know that ending freedom of movement is the big prize in this country. The sheer dishonesty of the immigration question means that the Government cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that what we do to EU nationals with restricted freedom of movement, the EU will do to the UK. I have tried to get the Prime Minister to accept that that is the case, because it means that the rights that we across the House have all enjoyed to live, to work, and to love across a continent of 27 nations, freely and without any restriction, will be denied to our young people, our children and future generations. The Government cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that, and to look the young people of this country in the eye and tell them that this change will apply equally to them. If any Conservative Member wishes to say that they acknowledge that, I will happily take an intervention —they were rushing to intervene earlier on.
James Cartlidge
That is an important point, and I genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as I share some of those concerns. Does he accept, however, that parts of England had extremely high levels of EU immigration, and although I always welcomed EU immigration—particularly from eastern Europe and so on—it is legitimate for any community faced with such high numbers to express concern about that, and we as politicians should never be deaf to those concerns?
Pete Wishart
I do not think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that this change will apply to young people in his constituency as they try possibly to make their lives in Europe. That was all I wanted to hear. I know that he has concerns about immigration, but our population growth in Scotland depends on immigration, and if we end freedom of movement, every single business in our economy will take a massive hit. Things are different in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in my nation of Scotland—we require different things. That is why we have called, repeatedly and consistently, for the devolution of immigration so that we can look after those interests, just as he looks after the interests of his constituency.
Pete Wishart
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I am conscious that I am taking up a lot of time, so I will make a bit of progress.
What happens next? That is the really intriguing question. Like a trapped beast, the Government might lash out and try to take the whole House down with them in an attempt to punish the country for its insubordination. Compromised by contradictory tensions within their own ranks, it is rare that we get a glimpse of a Government and party collapsing so spectacularly as we have seen over the past few weeks. They have lost all right and authority, and their ability to govern is almost gone. They have lost successive debates on important issues.
The Government will lose the vote next week—it seems there is nothing they can do to avoid that. As a result of the vote yesterday, they will have to come to the House with alternative options for how to deal with the situation, but there are two things that they could do to immediately to respond to that defeat. First, they could revoke article 50, which they can now do unilaterally because of the work done by some of my hon. Friends and colleagues. The second thing is a bit harder: ask the European Union for an extension to article 50 so that something can be cobbled together to try to keep the issue alive and open for debate. The Government have to do one of those two things, and the important point is how they deal strategically with their position.
I have considered all the different outcomes possible for the Government, and none of them is good—none of them works for this Government because each ensures that some massive constituency will emerge in opposition—but one thing that we have in Scotland is our own particular solution. We have a way out of this Brexit crisis. We do not have to go down with this Tory ship. We can make our own decisions and relationships with Europe. Increasingly, as this Government continue to collapse, as the Brexit options continue to fall in on them and as we see the disaster that is emerging, the choice of independence for our nation becomes more and more appealing. As we go forward into this year, it will soon become the majority option in our country, and soon we will have the opportunity to foster our own sustainable relationship with the European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I advise the House that on account of the number of Members wishing to contribute to the debate, it will be necessary to begin with an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I will speak about public trust in Parliament as a backdrop to this debate. I hope you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, if I start by paying tribute to our former colleague, the late, great Mark Wolfson, who served Sevenoaks with great distinction between 1979 and 1997. He was a great friend and parliamentary mentor to me.
I approach the debate with the clear principle—a principle that long ago inspired me as the great, great, great, great nephew of the “Grand Old Man” Gladstone—that because of a great and glorious truth, this Parliament is sovereign. I still believe that elected MPs, as the sovereign representatives of our constituencies, serve in the highest office, and that to be elected to this House is one of the great privileges and responsibilities that our citizens can bestow. This is a moment to remember that.
Parliament is the institution that, more than any other, defends the liberties and order that we enjoy. Parliament historically defied the tyranny of the King, and in the 19th century, it was Parliament that granted rights to so many who had been denied them. Parliament said that all of us are entitled to equal human rights. In moments of crisis, Parliament has always come together, with parties coming together to put country before party. It is now Parliament that confronts this crisis and the biggest decision facing our generation. It is a decision that will redefine Britain’s place in the world and, almost more importantly, the trust of a whole generation in our democratic Parliament and politics.
Parliament—yes, a majority of us in this House—decided to ask the people, and in June 2016, they gave us their answer. For that reason, I remain deeply opposed to a second referendum. The people have spoken and it is our job to implement their instruction. However, that instruction was not clear. People voted to leave by a narrow margin. In my constituency, 58% wished to leave, but nationally the result was 52% to 48%. That is not an overwhelming, thumping majority—it was a narrow margin. Many of my constituents who voted to leave said to me, “George, I voted to join a common market; I did not want to be in a political union.” Those people who voted to leave wanted to be in a common market. I put it to the House that there is no majority in the country for taking the result as an instruction unilaterally to pull ourselves out of all European institutions, including by cutting ourselves off from the single market. That is not our mandate, although we do have a duty to implement the will of the people we serve.
Public trust in our politics and parliamentary democracy is at a dangerous low. As well as getting the outcome right, we must ensure that we conduct ourselves in the spirit required of the day—a spirit of repairing the damage done by that appalling referendum campaign, reuniting a divided nation, and restoring trust in Parliament and parliamentary democracy, not least for those who did not get to vote in that referendum and the people whose futures and interests we will shape.
I voted remain in 2016, and as a Minister responsible for a £60 billion industry employing 250,000 people, in which not one man or woman I could find supported leaving, I felt that was my duty. As the MP for Mid Norfolk, I was—and remain—deeply worried about the impact of this decision on our economy and on the economic prospects of my citizens and constituents. However, I always vowed to respect the result, and I have done so ever since the referendum.
I may have voted remain, but in the previous Parliament and the coalition I was one of the leading champions of European reform. Colleagues may remember that I led the Fresh Start Group report, warning of the dangers of Europe’s precautionary principle on holding back UK leadership in science and innovation, which threatened to risk a European dark age at a time when the world is embracing extraordinary technologies in agricultural genetics, accelerated access for new medicines and genomics. Such technologies can transform the life chances of our global citizens. It is a time when we in the UK, through Europe, could lead on taking those technologies around the world. I fought this battle as a Back Bencher and then as a Minister, but the plea for a more innovative and enterprising Europe fell largely on deaf ears.
Yes, I was a remainer, but one who understood all too well the flaws of the European Union. Let no one accuse me of being a lily-livered, root-and-branch pro-European—I am not. [Interruption.] And neither am I a snowflake, as someone chunters from my side of the Chamber. I wanted Britain to lead the reform of Europe so that we, together with Europe, could embrace the extraordinary opportunities for UK science and innovation around the world in agri-tech, health-tech and clean-tech; in food, medicine and energy; to feed, heal and fuel; and to take around the world the technologies that this country leads in, and that, with our European scientific partners, could help to accelerate global development.
The people have spoken and now we have to deliver. The truth is that all parties are split. It is a truth that Opposition Front Benchers would do well to confront. I know that it suits them to position themselves as remainers in London and the south-east, and as Brexiteers up north, but the truth is that all parties are split. I believe that we ought to be pursuing this in the spirit of cross-party co-operation. In my view, we always needed a cross-party council of Brexit, and I was appalled to hear the other day that the shadow Brexit Secretary has apparently received no contact from Ministers about the possible basis of an agreement. It seems to me that unless we reach out across the House, listen to the electorate and signal that we will put party behind country, we are unlikely to find a solution. We have less than 100 days. We are running out of time. There is an angry mob outside Parliament, and they speak for an angriness in the nation. We need an orderly withdrawal.
Despite our differences, it seems to me that we are all agreed on one thing: this deal is not perfect. I have said so myself and I have many reservations. I had hoped that the Prime Minister would come back from Europe before Christmas with a concession on the backstop. She has come back with a concession, and I hope that there will be more before the vote next week. Let me be clear that I have supported no deal as an option for two and a half years in order to get the best deal. The negotiation is over. In my view, it would be woefully irresponsible of the Government to pursue no deal. I will do everything to ensure, yes, that we leave the European Union with an orderly deal, but not with no deal. When I hear Lord Wolfson, an ardent Brexiteer, warn as the chief executive of Next that the cost of food and clothes—basics that our constituents rely on—would go up dramatically with a no-deal Brexit, when I hear the Royal Society warn that a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for our science and when I hear the National Farmers Union warn that British agricultural would be hit without a deal, with a potential trade embargo affecting our £3 billion food export industry, please do not accuse me of “Project Fear”; this is serious “Project Business” for the people we serve.
If the Prime Minister’s deal does not pass next week, it seems to me that we need a plan B, and I have made it very clear that I personally support colleagues on both sides of the House pushing for the European Free Trade Association model. It would give us access to the single market, but we would be out of the customs union and we would have freedom to do trade deals and to take back control of farming and fishing. Yes, it has a problem, which is free movement, but remember that it is the free movement of workers, not citizens, and I believe that it would require—I relish this—a bold package of welfare eligibility reforms, along with skills and training reforms, here in the UK.
I will, with a heavy heart, vote for this deal on Tuesday, because we are now in the dying stages and leaving with no deal is unconscionable, but I beg colleagues to ask their Front Benchers to work together across the House in pursuit of something we can all be proud of.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I want to say at the outset that the Government are now in such a position that we need a general election. They no longer have any authority, they no longer have a majority and, it seems to me, they no longer serve any useful purpose.
Before making my main points, I want to take issue with something the Secretary of State said in his opening speech—the right hon. Gentleman has unfortunately had to leave the Chamber. Essentially, he argued that a second referendum would be undemocratic. The premise of the whole argument was that the deal people voted for in 2016, or that they thought they were voting for, will be delivered by the Prime Minister’s deal, but it will not. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, as indeed does every Member of the House who campaigned in the referendum. We all know that the deal has no bearing on the reasons people voted to leave the European Union, and we should be clear about that. I do not think that it would be undemocratic to go back to the people almost three years later and ask, “Is this exactly what you voted for? Is this what you want to happen?” My first priority, because of what I have said about the Government, is to have a general election. If that is not going to happen, the next best thing, almost certainly, has to be a referendum.
I want to talk about two things. First, I want us to consider Britain’s place in the world. Winston Churchill, in his speech to the Tory party conference in 1948—it has been quoted repeatedly, but I think it is worth revisiting—described “three majestic circles” in the following terms:
“The first circle for us is naturally the British Commonwealth and Empire, with all that that comprises. Then there is also the English-speaking world in which we, Canada, and the other British Dominions and the United States play so important a part. And finally there is United Europe.”
Obviously, so much has changed since then that we cannot stick to that as a rigid formula, and I would not argue that we should do so, but let us quickly take each one of those circles in turn. The United States and Canada are both much more complicated places and have new networks of connections between them and with South America. Of course, in the current circumstances, as others have said, the idea that we can have a truly constructive relationship with the present US Administration beggars belief.
The English-speaking world has changed considerably. Our trade and relationship with the Commonwealth, for example with Australia, New Zealand and Canada, are now dramatically different. The idea that we could suddenly revive all those old relationships and everything will be fine is purely fanciful.
We still have, while we are a member of it, a relationship with the European Union. That does give us a bigger say in what happens around the world, because it is not just plucky little Britain as an island state saying something; it is often something we can say in concert with the rest of the European Union. My first point is therefore that we will be a diminished country in the world after we leave the European Union.
Secondly, I want to address some of the concerns that constituents raised with me on the doorstep during the referendum campaign. Yes, the main issue was immigration. It was not just about free movement of labour, although some people did mention that; it was about immigration in general. Another issue was the lack of opportunity for young people, which is a serious problem for many young people in my constituency. Another issue was the need to revive our towns and town centres, and not just in economic terms but with regard to the built environment. Concerns were raised about workers’ rights, particularly by those active in trade unions, and of course I agree on that. Concerns were also raised about the environment, which is the subject of today’s debate.
I firmly believe that we can get immigration right and better, and that the time is now propitious for us to do so, with Europe. We could implement cross-Europe policies to deal with migrant labour and those who seek asylum through other ports in Europe. The time is right for us to get a good agreement on that with Europe. In recent weeks, my party and the Government have started to publish new immigration policies. Let me be clear: I am not anti-immigration, but I accept that we have to have some kind of rational policy on it.
On education, health and all these other issues, the country is crying out for change and for new opportunities for young people. Why do we have to leave the European Union to get that? We do not have to. If we put forward to the British people a positive programme that still involves our being part of the European Union, they would probably want to go for it. They should certainly be given the opportunity to do so. Our future lies in our hands, but it does not necessarily lie outside the European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) to make the next contribution, I am sorry to remind Opposition Members of what they will have already seen for themselves: namely, that the speech-time facility is not functioning. I am advised that it will not be repaired until the House is not sitting. Opposition Members, who will doubtless be very aggrieved, cannot go on for as long as they want, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) chunters hopefully from a sedentary position. They are disadvantaged, but they will have to be assisted by the Whip on duty, who can gesticulate as and when he or she thinks fit. That is a practice not entirely unknown or uncongenial, in my experience, to a Whip.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I approach this debate very much conscious of the wide range of views held in the House. As we are on the second leg of this debate, following December’s discussions, this is a pertinent moment to go back to what it is we are here to focus on vis-à-vis the withdrawal agreement and how we got here. Of course, I approach this debate very much with the referendum result in mind. Nearly three years ago, this country quite remarkably put on the greatest show of democracy that we have seen, resulting in the majority—more than 17 million people—voting yes to take back control of our country. They made that choice against a range of forecasts and, to be quite crude, some pessimistic propaganda. They took a bold and brave decision to instruct us Members of Parliament, in this House and throughout the country, to take a new and different path. It was a message to us to reset the political system.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I am so grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in her speech. Does she agree that, whether people voted leave or remain, at no point during the referendum campaign was there a suggestion that the rights of EU nationals who had been resident in this country, lawfully exercising their treaty rights prior to any prospective Brexit day, should be affected if the referendum resulted in a vote to leave?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point. That was never a feature of the campaign at all. Of course, what did figure in the minds of the British public, irrespective of how they voted, was that the political system—us—had for far too long siphoned power away from voters and almost denuded political decision making in this country. That is where they wanted to see us come together. At the core of the vote was a desire to see our democratic, economic and political freedoms returned to our institutions and, of course, for them to see sovereignty returned, too.
The vote to leave was an endorsement not of a political individual, party or platform, but of our country. It was an expression of self-confidence in where we could go in terms of our place in the world. Amid the debates that we are currently having, the rhetoric now, the wider discussions of a second referendum or even, as some may say, attempts to block Brexit, and amid the stories in the media and a continuation of fear and scare-stories, the essence of choice—the choice that people wanted to see—is being lost. Of course, there are a wide range of views in the House, and I respect all right hon. and hon. colleagues who want their voices to be heard, but we should also remember that Parliament gave the people a choice, and Parliament voted to trigger article 50 and to leave the European Union. We are now focused on fulfilling those commitments.
That brings me to the deal that has been put forward. Of course, many of us want to see Brexit delivered, and we were impressed by the sensible and pragmatic vision for our future outside the EU that the Prime Minister outlined in her Lancaster House speech and in other speeches two years ago. That was a plan that would have restored control of our country, kept a positive partnership with our friends and allies in the EU and, of course, freed Britain to be globally focused and to form close ties with countries and friends around the world. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister approached the EU in good faith but, as negotiations have progressed, the vision in Lancaster House and other speeches has been diluted, and ultimately ditched. We have seen the EU exercising control in the negotiation at the expense of our national interest.
The deal before us does not deliver the Brexit and the vision that the Prime Minister originally outlined. It allows the EU to continue to make our laws and to impose its Court’s judgment on us, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) said earlier. It gives the EU powers to veto our foreign policy and sabotages our international trade negotiations. Ultimately, as the House has heard repeatedly, it threatens the integrity of the United Kingdom. On top of that, we are expected to pay £39 billion of taxpayers’ money, as other right hon. Members have highlighted, without guarantees of a comprehensive free trade arrangement and no prospect of departing from the horrors of the backstop without the EU’s permission. The equal partnership with the EU that the Prime Minister promised has not materialised; instead, we have a deal that gives the EU licence to dominate us for years to come.
I am conscious that earlier in the debate we heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs speak about the environment, fisheries and farming. As a Member of Parliament who represents a coastal community and a farming community, I have said in the House, as have colleagues, that there are so many freedoms that we want to secure outside the European Union when it comes to the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, yet the deal does not secure them. Brussels will still pose ongoing threats to our fisheries, which will obviously have ramifications for us. The same is true when it comes to agricultural policy. Farmers in my constituency have raised that issue with me.
Of course, the great prize of being free from the EU to negotiate and secure trade deals with growing global markets has been lost in this deal. I do not need to remind the House that by the middle of the century the EU’s share of trade in the global economy will be less than 10%. We need to focus much more strongly on our trading relationships outside the EU. Why would we want to remain shackled to the EU and to be dependent on it to set our trade policy when we can be trading further afield? We need to work sooner rather than later to secure those relationships.
I have touched on what the deal means for our precious Union and for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The protocol severely damages democracy in Northern Ireland and imposes laws and rules on the people there without any representation. That goes further than the controls on the rest of the United Kingdom and is simply not acceptable. In the provisions on Northern Ireland we have seen for the first time in modern history a UK Government negotiate to cede part of our country to a foreign power. That is simply not acceptable.
The British people are tired of subservience to the EU and astonished by the one-sided negotiation process that has put the integrity of our precious Union in real danger. We will be trapped in the backstop and trapped in EU institutions; Northern Ireland will be left under the control of a foreign power, which is not acceptable; and under this deal our destiny will no longer be in our own hands. The British people want national leadership that is ambitious for our country—the type of leadership that is clear as to who governs our country and where elected power and accountability lies, and they want decision making that is free from the unnecessary constraints of the EU and EU control, and with that a restoration of trust in the democratic process that does not see our political establishment renege on the referendum result or our manifesto commitments.
I believe that Parliament should deliver on these democratic, political and economic freedoms by rejecting the withdrawal agreement. We must ensure that we can go further by trying to secure the type of trading arrangements that we originally said we would, but we can do so only once we reject the withdrawal agreement and ensure that the EU is no longer in control of our country.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).
Unfortunately, as is so often the case in this House, we have polarised views on both the leave side and the remain side, for which no deal is ever going to be good enough. I rise to speak because my approach to the nation’s decision to leave European Union is to look forward rather than debate the past, to work cross-party where possible, to be constructive rather than destructive, and to seek to unite the country, not divide it further. That is why I support amendment (p), which I have co-sponsored with my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy).
As we debate the conditions under which the UK leaves the European Union, there are legitimate concerns not only about what form the final agreement takes, but about UK Government intentions and the UK’s future direction. I am sure that this amendment is not perfect—we know that all amendments in this debate are not legally binding, and there is much discussion about that—but it does speak to the concerns of many in this House about how we can build on the political declaration and get more assurances, and maybe more certainty, from the Government on how we can protect the rights and standards that affect employment, health and safety and the environment, many of which we have taken for granted during UK membership of the European Union. We want to ensure that they do not decline after the UK leaves. Also, in keeping with the desire for the UK Parliament to regain control, amendment (p) wishes this House to be able to debate and decide on any future improvements to protections or rights implemented by the European Union. The choice would be in our hands; we would debate and vote on those issues.
As this amendment proposes, the UK’s goal post Brexit should be to ensure that workers’ rights do not slip back—that the rights enjoyed by many British employees are protected. Likewise, UK standards on water pollution, pesticides, emissions, energy conservation and carbon reduction must all be protected, with a UK commitment not to walk backwards. Amendment (p) reflects some of the key demands expressed by Labour over the future direction.
For too long the debate in this House has been polarised, with the rhetoric too sharp and many Members on both sides of the House too quick to condemn and too slow to listen. I campaigned for remain. A majority of my voters voted leave, although many voted remain as well. I have always been honest with my leave voters that there will have to be compromise in the final deal that allows us to chart our own future and have more independence over many policy areas—the ability to move beyond the EU and deal with many of the concerns that led to their voting leave. But I have also been up front about recognising that we need a strong partnership with the European Union as we leave, and much of that strength is through co-operation.
I am also honest that life in the EU was never perfect, despite the relationship being close for good reason and despite the fact that it must remain so. We need to talk less about what we are against and more about what we are for, and I believe that our deliberations on the next steps should reflect that. The British people deserve sincere endeavour from this Parliament. The withdrawal agreement is the headline deal—the divorce. It is not the final deal. Trade-related, customs union-related talks will have to be agreed only once the UK leaves.
I welcomed Labour’s support for a transition period, which we demanded back in August 2017. We recognised that the 20-month period to which the Prime Minister signed up would be as important as the past two years have been because there are a wide range of trade and security matters to resolve. We should approach this period positively. It is unreasonable to expect all these matters to have been resolved by this point in the process, but a deal has to be agreed to get to that discussion, and there is still time for talks across this House in order to reach that outcome.
Despite the good work of the EU, I am very proud of the UK having a long history of being at the forefront of high standards when it comes to employment rights and environmental protections. It would be wrong to suggest that the rights that UK citizens take for granted—holidays, maternity leave, minimum pay and our welfare system—exist only because of the European Union. They do not. As a Labour MP, I fundamentally believe they exist because of 100 years of the Labour party and the trade union movement. Despite relatively few periods in office, Labour has made great advances in social change that have become mainstream and to which all parties now lay claim and adopt. These are achievements of this House over many decades, not imports from Brussels or Strasbourg, and not every country in the EU can claim what the UK rightly can.
Chris Bryant
I sympathise with some of that, but the truth is that LGBT rights were quite often forced on Britain by European Court of Justice decisions and European Court of Human Rights decisions, and were not adopted even by a Labour Government. Sometimes we have had to resort to elsewhere.
Caroline Flint
Shame. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who should be a right hon. Friend, but we must not polarise this debate by saying either that the EU is all bad or that the UK does nothing without the EU’s permission.
Our minimum wage is twice that of Greece’s and more than Spain’s, and many EU member states do not have a minimum wage. Statutory maternity pay in the UK is paid for up to 39 weeks, compared with just 16 weeks in France, 16 weeks in Holland and 26 weeks in Ireland. Many people ascribe paid holidays to the EU, but the truth is that it was a Labour Government who signed up to the social chapter that led to that happening, and who added bank holidays on top. With regards to equality, same-sex marriage is legal in just 14 of the 28 member states, so the rights that our lesbian and gay citizens enjoy are in many respects rights derived from decisions of this Parliament, not the European Union.
In the coming weeks and during the transition, it is not too late to adopt a different approach—a less confrontational politics. I want the Government to begin a new dialogue across parties, as they should have done earlier. I want them to consult the Opposition on the negotiations around trade now, and to commit to doing so during the transition period. With 78 days until the UK leaves the European Union, it is too easy to talk about further delay. The task is only impossible if we in this House make it impossible. Extending article 50 would not solve anything, and neither would a second referendum. Our conduct in the coming weeks and months can either seek the best deal and heal divisions, or seek to prevent a deal and divide the country further.
I believe that our path has to be one that brings the nation together—a Brexit based on a reasonable deal that protects the standards and rights that we value and shows generosity of spirit to our European neighbours, but which gets on with the task of getting through this process and dealing with the many issues that we did not face up to during our 40 years in the EU.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
This Parliament is on trial. The public voted very clearly in the people’s vote of 2016. They were told by Parliament and the Government, by the remain and leave campaigns, that they—the people—were making the decision. They were promised that this Parliament would get on with the task, and they now say to this Parliament, “Do just that. Get on with it.”
The public recall that this Parliament is dominated by Members of Parliament serving in the Labour and the Conservative interests. In the 2017 election, every one of us was elected on a manifesto that made it clear that our parties supported implementing the verdict of the British people. The Conservative manifesto went further and made it very clear that we were going to leave the single market and the customs union, as had been pointed out by both remain and leave campaigns in the referendum. The Labour party manifesto set out an interesting and imaginative trade policy for an independent Britain that is clearly incompatible with staying in the customs union. So Labour too, along with the Conservatives, said to the public in 2017 that we would be leaving the customs union as well as the European Union when the decision was implemented.
There are many leave voters now who are extremely angry that some Members in this House think they were stupid, think they got their decision wrong, and think they should have to do it again. Many people in the country who voted remain, as well as many who voted leave, think it is high time that this Parliament moved on from every day re-enacting the referendum debate as if it had not happened and thinking that we can go back over the referendum debate and decision because it did not like the answer. All those who stood on a manifesto to leave the European Union should remember that manifesto. Those who deeply regret the decision and did not stand on such a manifesto should still understand that democracy works by the majority making decisions. When a majority has made a decision in a referendum where they were told that they would get what they voted for, it ill behoves anyone in this Parliament to know better than the British public and to presume that this Parliament can take on the British public and stand against them, because we are here to serve that public. We gave them the choice and they made that choice.
I want us to be much more interested in the opportunities that Brexit provides and to have proper debates about all the things the Government should be doing for when we leave, as I trust we will on 30 March 2019. I see nothing in the withdrawal agreement that I like. It is not leaving; it is sentencing us to another 21 to 45 months of these awful, endless debates and repetitions of the referendum arguments as we try to get something from the European Union by way of an agreement over our future partnership, having thrown away most of our best negotiating cards by putting them into the withdrawal agreement in the form that the European Union wants. That would be ridiculous, and a very large number of leave voters would see it as a complete sell-out. That applies to a very large number of remain voters as well, many of them in my own constituency. They have written to me and said, “For goodness’ sake oppose this withdrawal agreement, because while we do not agree with you about the ultimate aim, we are united in thinking this is even worse than just leaving”, or, in their case, staying within the European Union. I find myself in agreement with the overwhelming majority of my constituents on this subject. For both those who voted remain and leave, this is a very bad agreement that suits neither side.
The opportunities we should be discussing today in respect of fishing, agriculture and business are very considerable. I again ask my oft-repeated question of the Government: when are they going to publish our new tariff schedule? The United Kingdom can decide how much tariff, if any, to impose on imports into our country. I think that the EU tariff schedule on imports into our country is too high. I proposed to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that he remove all tariffs on imported components. That would be a huge boost for manufacturing in this country. Instead of having to say to manufacturers that we might end up with some tariffs on components coming in from the EU, because we have to charge the same to everybody, let us be bold and say that we are going to get rid of the tariffs on the components coming in from non-EU sources so that we cheapen the costs of manufacturing in the United Kingdom and give people a better choice on components.
George Freeman
Will my right hon. Friend address the worries of farming families, communities and industries up and down the country facing tariffs on their products going into Europe? This is a £3.15 billion industry facing a very serious tariff threat.
John Redwood
I was going to get on to food, and I will do so immediately as I have been prompted. We run a massive £20 billion a year trade deficit in food with the European Union, and tariff-free food competes all too successfully against some elements of our farming industry. I want the Government to choose a tariff structure on food that provides lower overall tariffs against the rest of the world but produces some tariff against EU production so that we will produce more domestically. I want to cut the food miles. I want to see more of our food being produced and sold domestically. Our domestic market share has plunged seriously during the time we have been in the European Union. I think it was well over 90% in 1972 when we entered, and it is now well under 70%. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot get back there.
We need to know urgently from this Government what tariff protection there is going to be against EU food once we have left; whether they will take advantage of the opportunity to get rid of tariffs on food coming in that we cannot conceivably grow or produce for ourselves; and whether they will lower the average tariff, because some of the tariffs that the EU imposes are eye-wateringly too high, to the detriment of the food consumer. As we will be collecting more tariff revenue in total when we start to impose some tariffs on EU products, we should be having a debate on how we are going to spend that money. I trust that the Government would rebate it all to British consumers by direct tax cuts of the right kind. There is no reason why the consumer should be worse off, because we are heavy net exporters and we are going to collect an awful lot more tariff revenue on the EU’s goods than they are going to collect on ours, unless we do something very radical on our tariff schedule. We therefore need to discuss how to spend that money.
We also need to discuss how we rebuild our fishing industry. I am impatient to get on with this. I do not want it to be delayed. We need to take control of our fish and our fishing industry this year, not sometime, never. Under the withdrawal agreement, we have no idea if and when we would get our fishing industry back. Doubtless it would be in play as something to be negotiated away, because the Government have given everything else away that they might otherwise have used in the negotiation. I want to get on and take back control of the fish now. I want a policy from the DEFRA Secretary on how we can land much more of the fish in the United Kingdom, how we can build our fish processing industries on the back of that, and what kind of arrangements we will have with the neighbouring countries both within and outside the EU whereby we will be free to settle the terms and negotiate our own conditions.
This is a huge opportunity. The fishing industry is one of the industries that has been most gravely damaged by our membership of the European Union, and we owe it to our fishing communities around the country to take that opportunity. From landlocked Wokingham, I can assure colleagues from coastal communities that there is huge enthusiasm throughout the country to rebuild our fishing industry and to see those fishing fleets again expand and enable us to land much more of our own fish. We can, at the same time, have a policy that is better on conservation by getting rid of many of the big industrial trawlers that come from the continent. We can get rid of the system where there are discards at sea or, now, the system where people are actually going to be prevented from fishing completely because the fishery cannot be managed sensibly, to the detriment of the fish and the fishermen and women undertaking the work.
There is a huge agenda there. Above all, I want the Government to set out how we are going to spend all the money that we will be saving. The Government say that we are going to give away £39 billion—I think it will be considerably more—under the withdrawal agreement. I would like to take that sum of money, which they have clearly provided for as it is their plan to spend that money, and spend it in the first two years when we come out in March 2019. That would be a 2% boost to our economy—a very welcome Brexit bonus.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I invite the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to sign our amendment (p), because through it we want to take back control to Parliament. The substance of the amendment is on workers’ rights, environmental standards, and health and safety—that, for me, is one of our red lines; not the only one, but a critical one. That is what this amendment does in directing Government through the negotiation period. I recommend that others around the House sign up to it.
The Government have a dilemma and I want to speak directly to them. This time when the Government are imploring everyone to vote for their deal is the time when we, across Parliament, have maximum leverage over the Government. The Government will need to handle this dilemma in a very sophisticated way. The time for rhetoric has gone—there have been plenty of repeat speeches on what people think; everyone has a view—and the time for negotiating has begun. The Government ought to be getting people in immediately—be it shadow Front Benchers, the shadow Brexit Secretary, or the Chair of the Brexit Committee—and attempting to negotiate directly with them on how we go forward. Otherwise the prospect of no deal gets all the more real—no deal by accident.
The focus here has been inward, and the Government’s focus has been inward, on their own party and their Democratic Unionist party deal, rather than outward. It is getting very late in the day, but it not too late in the day. The weakness of the Government’s deal is also its strength, in that it puts a lot off into the negotiations on the trade deal. That gives us in Parliament significant influence, if we choose to use it, all the way through.
Mr Speaker, your ruling yesterday has been seen in the context of you being biased in relation to Brexit. That is nonsense. You will have whatever view you want. The huge significance for government must not be lost in this. With a Fixed-term Parliaments Act and a minority Government, your ruling gives Parliament more power over a minority Government in the future. It happens to be a minority Conservative Government now. If there is an election, it could be a minority Labour Government. It is the same principle. This is fundamental, because it changes the way we will have to operate. Will we learn quickly enough, or will we continue with the rhetoric and fall into something that the majority do not want?
There are other red lines. These are not the only things that I or, I think, Opposition Members regard as essential. One of the reasons that my constituents voted for Brexit—it was no surprise to me—was that we have not had our fair share. There was a small period under the Blair Government when we got our fair share infrastructure-wise. We gloried in it, and it was brilliant, but other than that, we have not in my lifetime had our fair share. Whoever is in government in the next five years has to give what I call the real Brexit dividend—our fair share—to areas like mine, which means that other areas would get less. That is what “left behind” actually means.
I recall a demonstration I went on outside the power stations, with 5,000 workers. I was the only external person invited, and I spoke. The jobs were going to Portuguese workers and, because of EU laws, they could do nothing about it. We had to pressure the employer, and we succeeded, through civil action. I realised at that point how strong the feeling was, and therefore the result was no surprise. If we want to define a Brexit voter in my area, it is a trade unionist in an organised workplace. That is the core of the Brexit vote, and my area is not unusual in that. Government need to get their head around that and negotiate with the Opposition over the next weekend and the next few weeks, if that is needed to get a deal.
I stood on a manifesto that said we are going to deliver Brexit. Frankly, voters can boot me out—they can boot any of us out for reneging on or sticking to our principles. I do not for a moment demur when people take the opposite point of view. They are very principled people, and I respect them for that. I do not agree with their conclusions, but I respect them for their bravery. Everyone knows that even a second referendum will not resolve the split in the country. Part of what we need to do in this process in relation to the deal is to resolve the split in the country.
My area is sick to death of condescending, patronising words. People in my area knew what they were voting for. They knew why they were voting—and by the way, it was not the same as the vision of the right hon. Member for Wokingham. They were not voting for a race to the bottom, for the lowest common denominator, for lower wages and lower standards and for us to undercut the rest. They were voting for best practice, the highest of standards and to compete with the freedoms. My appeal to Members in my party and others is that now is the time for practical, specific proposals based on what people are in favour of precisely, not what they are against.
This is not just about whether we can get through the next few weeks. It is about whether Parliament and its authority will survive. My voters will walk. They may not vote Tory or UKIP, and they may not vote for me; they will walk. They will say, “The political process is useless and broken. You’re all to blame.” We can reach different conclusions about the outcomes of that, but understanding that reality is fundamental.
We should at least try, with the Labour party manifesto position and our stated objectives, to get a negotiated deal with the Government and vice versa. That is fundamental to the process. Will it succeed? I do not know. We are helping with this, and we are helping, not to be helpful politically, but because this is real stuff: health and safety, environmental standards and workers’ rights are real stuff.
John Redwood
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about how the public will react if their voice is ignored, but will he withdraw his comment that I want lower standards and a race to the bottom? I want higher pay and better standards, and that is what I campaigned for.
John Mann
Well, I shall finish by inviting the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else to sign amendment (p). We should see more amendments like this on equality issues and other red lines, to get the deal through by the maximum consensus based on our manifesto commitments and, more importantly, to hold the country together.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the debate, but this seems important. The media are reporting that No. 10 Downing Street is briefing that its interpretation of yesterday’s vote and the requirements of the legislation is that, if the Prime Minister’s motion is defeated next Tuesday, the debate on the plan B that the Government would be obliged to bring forward would be restricted to only 90 minutes, and they would allow only one amendment to be chosen and voted upon.
Is that your understanding? Can you confirm that the Government could in fact provide as much time as they wanted for a constitutional debate that is so contested and so crucial to the future of our country, and that they could provide for as many amendments to be considered as is needed? Given that the Prime Minister and the Government have been saying that they want to listen, reach out and build a consensus, how, if this is the case, can we believe anything that the Government say?
Mr Speaker
I will respond, but as the Chief Whip is signalling an interest in contributing, I am happy to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Julian Smith)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to confirm, no decision has been made along the lines of what the right hon. Lady has said. The Government will do everything they can to ensure that the House is fully consulted in every eventuality next week, and the information that she has is not correct.
Mr Speaker
I am happy to respond to the point of order from the right hon. Lady, and I thank her for giving me notice of it. She has kindly shown me the press report to which she refers, but she knows that I have not yet had the opportunity to study it carefully. Moreover, it is not our normal practice to respond to any and every press report based upon a briefing from someone who perhaps thinks that he or she knows what the procedures are in this place but does not always fully do so.
It is true to say that the default position under Standing Order No. 16(1) is that debates pursuant to an Act of Parliament must be concluded after 90 minutes, flowing from which there tends to be a practical restriction on amendments because the time has lapsed, and therefore only one amendment in such a hypothetical situation would be taken. However, it is also true to say that such provision is often disapplied by an Order of the House.
I must emphasise that all of this is hypothetical at this stage, and I do not think it would be helpful to speculate on what may happen subsequent to the decision of the House next Tuesday. I can, however, confirm that the right hon. Lady is quite correct in saying that it is perfectly open to the Government, if such a situation were to arise, to provide for a much fuller debate. In those circumstances, there would predictably be a significant number of colleagues who would want to put their own propositions on the paper. I am extremely confident that if that hypothetical scenario were to arise, colleagues would assert themselves.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you confirm that it would be open to Members of the House to seek to remedy this potential problem by tabling an amendment to the withdrawal agreement motion for next week, because this matter would inevitably flow from a consequence of the withdrawal agreement not being carried by the House of Commons?
Mr Speaker
I would like to reflect on that. It may be possible for that to be done. If it is possible for it to be done, it may well be a matter of judgment as to whether it is thought to be worth doing. The reason there is no great hurry on that matter is, of course, that I am not even in a position, under the Order passed on 4 December, to select amendments until the final day of the debate. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman heard me explaining, in response to a point of order from the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) this morning, that it was quite wrong for people to talk about amendments that had been accepted. She mentioned to me in her point of order that allegedly the Government had signalled their acceptance of a particular amendment. That was a wholly inapposite report or claim. No amendment has been accepted at this stage, because no amendment has yet been selected. I am not allowed to select any amendment until the final day, so some people really do need to keep up with what the procedure is. The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of time in which to reflect on these matters.
Yvette Cooper
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the debate further, but the response from the Chief Whip was obviously helpful, even if it is slightly odd that he has now left the Chamber before the conclusion of any further discussion on the point of order. Do you think, Mr Speaker, it would be helpful for there to be further clarification from the Government Benches about what plan there would be for further debates, so that we can have reassurance?
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the right hon. Lady is twofold. First, I do not control the Government Chief Whip any more than the Government Chief Whip controls me. I think we ought to be clear about that. I cannot comment on his whereabouts and they are not a matter of any great concern to me. Secondly, if the right hon. Lady or other colleagues want to explore these matters in the debate in the coming days, they absolutely can do so. All I can say is that, in support of Members in all parts of the House and of all shades of opinion, I will always have regard to the opportunities for Members to put their points and to advance their causes. These are not matters purely for the Treasury Bench. I think we are clear about that.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I should start by reflecting that the speech by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was one of the finest analyses of what happened in the referendum. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) also absolutely hit the nail on the head about where we are today and how we need to progress.
We have heard, and will continue to hear in this debate, reasons why people feel they cannot support the Government’s deal. We will hear hon. Member after hon. Member describe in gruesome detail what precise strand of Brexit or non-Brexit they will support. That will be all very fascinating for their local paper or grist to the mill for their next blog, but in the context of what Parliament is doing in this debate and in next week’s vote it will be utterly irrelevant. What matters is not what any of us individually think of the deal; what matters is what Members in the Chamber decide. What matters is the maths of who makes up this House.
I am happy to give detailed reasoning to the House for why I am prepared to support the Government. That would be of interest to some of my constituents. It would be welcome news to my constituent who runs a business which employs over 20,000 people and is pleading with us to agree the deal. It would be interesting to the small businesses in my constituency that wrote to me about why ideological Brexiteers are playing with fire when they breezily claim that no deal would be just a bit of mid-air turbulence. We should listen to such people and ask ourselves who is more likely than them to understand the complexity of supply chains or the competitive pricing of their products.
For some in this House the word “compromise” is a pejorative term: a sign of weakness and a word which is too quickly followed by other words like “betrayal”. For me, compromise is almost always a virtue. I compromised as a soldier serving on operations. I compromised as a businessman in every negotiation I did. I compromised as a Minister when negotiating in Europe for this country. I compromise almost daily in this place trying to get some of what I want through, rather than getting nothing. Perhaps the best analogy I can use is that I compromised when I got divorced. As one hon. Member said outside this Chamber the other day, “At least his divorce was with only one person, not 27.”
As the leading Brexit campaigner Dan Hannan wrote recently, if a 52% to 48% referendum result is a mandate for anything, it is a mandate for compromise. That said, like most in this House I am a democrat and I concede that my side lost. Like about 85% of this House, I was re-elected in 2017—I might add, with the highest ever popular vote in my constituency in any general election—on a manifesto that pledged to respect the result of the referendum. If we look at the bell curve of public opinion on this issue, we see the edges of the bell curve showing the irreconcilables, the small percentage at either end who are either inexorably grieving at the result of the referendum and will do anything they can to undo it, or those for whom the cleanest of breaks with the EU is a theocracy and an ideology on which, as with the other end of the scale, compromise is impossible. And then there is the rest of the country. Here we find an understanding about what we want to achieve: to move from being a country inside the EU with some opt-outs, to one being outside the EU with some opt-ins. For many of them, this deal is fine. I support the Prime Minister if she can bring forward any changes and tweaks that will encourage more of our colleagues to join. I also give notice that if that fails I will seek, with other colleagues right across the House, to find a way forward. If that takes me down an EEA or EFTA route, then I will look at that. That would be sub-optimal, but it may be the only thing the House can agree. What I do feel is that there is no majority in this House for no deal. I really urge people to listen to industry and to the letter we received today from the four presidents of the NFU. If one represents a rural area and minds about our food industry and the rural economy, that letter is calm, deliberate knowledge.
In the spirit of compromise, and to ensure there is something for all of us, I am really attracted by the idea that, perhaps on workers’ rights, the environment, and health and safety, we could provide a sort of triple lock where if Europe decides to raise standards above where we are today we can say that we will put them to this House. We are a sovereign House of Commons. We can make a decision on whether to support them. I am interested in that.
I wish to say a word to those who want a second vote. If someone is calling for it because they see it as the best way of reversing the first referendum, say so—be honest with the public and do not dress it up with some higher purpose. In passing, I would also say: be careful what you wish for. The further one gets from London and its bien pensant elites, the more one detects an anger and belligerence towards the campaign for a second referendum. The Institute for Government has said it would take four to five months to have a second referendum. We would be putting this poor country through another four or five months of the kind of divisions we saw in the last one. Is that what we really want? The Electoral Commission, the independent body that oversees such votes, has very strong views on some of the points being made about the kind of questions that might be asked.
My discussions with some of the 97% of my constituents who have not written to me on this issue can be condensed down to one simple message: get on with it.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept, though, that if the House were to support the Government’s deal, along with the political declaration, it would be a sure fire way of ensuring that this uncertainty and political wrangling continue for years to come?
Richard Benyon
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It will give certainty. It would certainly give certainty to many of the businesses I have talked about. I think there is a dam holding back investment in the economy. We all see it in our constituencies. If the deal were to go through, I think we would see a mini-boom in this country, as well as a determination to close this off in the minds of the electorate by trying to speed through the final stage of negotiations. If there is another emotion I detect in my constituency, it is one of admiration for the tenacity of the Prime Minister. While not everyone will agree with what she has come up with, I think we can all accept that.
I will finish with a heartfelt plea to people right across the House not to stand absolutely on the principle and clear position of what they would accept, but to recognise that the House of Commons has to raise its game, understand that compromise is not a dirty word and find a solution that we can all agree.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), I must advise the House that, after she has spoken, the time limit will have to be reduced to six minutes. [Interruption.] Yes, I recognise that it is a pity, but very many Members wish to take part.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).
Is it not depressing that we are here again having moved on no further in the past five weeks? The Public Accounts Committee has produced nine reports on Government preparedness. Every day we go on indecisively, the Government are spending money preparing for no deal and other options, and that is not to mention the money that will need to be invested, if we leave, in order that we can do all the things currently done through European institutions.
I will not repeat what I said in my speech on 6 December, but I feel I need to mention the 41,500 EU residents in my borough, who are very concerned. The uncertainty that the right hon. Gentleman talked about is doing them and business no favours. I have sympathy with what he said about compromise. I am a remainer. My constituency was very pro-remain, and many of my constituents viscerally want to remain, but the distress and delay is a problem. He talked about a three to four-month plan for a second referendum, which I would reluctantly support if Parliament cannot make a decision, but according to others it would be six months. We need to think carefully about where that would lead us and what uncertainties we would have to live through along the way.
As I said in my last speech, the Government have proceeded recklessly, but today I want to talk about an issue that was never really discussed in the campaign on the mainland of the UK. I should declare that my husband is a dual citizen of Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland border is too often dismissed as a confected issue that does not matter greatly. I did some research. Only 108 MPs in the House today were in Parliament when the Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998, and only 144 of us were here when we had the last republican terrorist attack on the mainland. There is a diminishing number of Members who were here and closely involved in that debate, when our leaders, Tony Blair among them, took us to the signing of the Good Friday agreement.
In December 2017, the Irish Mirror reported that MI5 had disrupted more than 250 separate attacks in Northern Ireland alone, with seizures of explosives, weapons and ammunition, and that there had been 16 attacks in 2015-16 in Northern Ireland. There remain serious issues for peace in Northern Ireland and the security of Northern Irish citizens, as well as of Irish citizens across the border. We have been in the common travel area with Northern Ireland since the Irish Free State was declared in 1922, except for a brief period after the second world war. Ireland has aligned itself with us to maintain that position, in 1952 signing up to our immigration rules on the Commonwealth and in the ’70s joining the EU. The Republic of Ireland is not considered a foreign country under UK law. Irish citizens have a special status that confers on them the right to vote here. Under British law they have more rights than EU citizens, including the right to be Members of this House with Irish citizenship alone; they are not required to become British citizens.
It is good that article 5 of the withdrawal agreement confirms that the common travel area and free movement must remain for our Irish cousins, but it is of real concern to me that we have not debated how we will deal with the Irish border. The Prime Minister said in a statement in October 2018, and she has repeated this sort of phrase many a time:
“We are obviously committed to no hard border, and we have made it clear that in any circumstances, including in a no-deal situation, we would be doing all that we could to ensure that there was no hard border. We would look to work with Ireland and the European Union to ensure that there was no hard border, but there has been no commitment in relation to that.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2018; Vol. 648, c.61.]
That last half sentence is the real issue.
There are options, but none of them is good. Customs checks could be imposed at the border because Ireland becomes a third country under EU law. How does that chime with our commitment to the common travel area? We could do nothing and temporarily have no border while we work out the political agreement, but if we do so, we could be the subject of a complaint to the World Trade Organisation. We could move checks further away from the border in the so-called max fac—maximum facilitation—option, which the UK proposed and the EU rejected. Even when the UK proposed it, it was still not clear what it was. It involves a bit of number plate recognition, and perhaps taking some goods and checking them.
I have had the privilege of speaking to the Comptroller and Auditor General for the Northern Ireland Audit Office and hearing him describe the travel of goods back and forth across the border, which I know well. UK citizens in Northern Ireland and Irish citizens in Ireland have a lot of business—processing of milk and pork, a lot of other agricultural business—that relies on movement across the border. It is vital that that is maintained, and there is really no answer to that. One of the reasons why I cannot support the deal is that it does not resolve that problem.
There is, as other speakers have highlighted, no simple answer, but we have had weakness upon weakness from this Government. There has been reckless rush and unnecessary delay. The Prime Minister has reached out far too late to Members in her own party, let alone trying to have any cross-party discussions. I was dismayed to hear from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) that there has not even been proper dialogue with the Opposition Front Bench. There is no authority, and that is of real concern to me. How can we have faith that the sketchy political agreement will be fleshed out and delivered by this Prime Minister in her current weakness?
I think we need to look—I say this rather reluctantly—at revoking or at least extending article 50 unless Parliament can deliver. Even with the three-day deadline, it is difficult to know how we can begin to coalesce around alternatives. I throw that at the Government; as the Executive, they still have power to determine the business in this place. We have to have an opportunity to discuss alternatives. If we fail, we need to consider going back to the people, even with all the problems I have highlighted that doing so would raise.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
In these difficult times for our country, it is as well to remember the iron rule of politics: no situation is so bad that it is not possible for politicians to make it worse. I fear that we are in such a situation now. Not to vote for the deal would be to fall into precisely that trap.
I was a remainer. I campaigned across Cheltenham for remain, from the high street to the promenade. I did not do so because I thought the European Union was perfect. It had allowed itself, in many ways, to become inflexible and too remote from ordinary people. Even if I would not have suggested joining on the terms that were proffered in 2016, it seemed to me that the process of unravelling that 40-year relationship would be so lengthy, so complex, so expensive and so divisive that the game would not be worth the candle.
I made that argument and others, which are being reheated, such as that that process would act as a headwind against growth, and I was proud of the fact that 56% of people in Cheltenham voted to remain. But we did not vote as constituencies; we voted as a country. We voted as one nation, and I am first and foremost a democrat. I stood on a manifesto in 2015 that read:
“We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.”
Parliament then voted for such a referendum. On Second Reading of the Bill that became the European Union Referendum Act 2015, the then Foreign Secretary said that the Bill had
“one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1047.]
That was voted for by parties across the House—the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. During the campaign, the Government distributed to every home in Cheltenham a leaflet stating:
“The referendum…is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union…The Government will implement what you decide.”
We all know that was the deal. I remember the words of the late and much-missed Paddy Ashdown on the evening of the referendum. Before the result came in, he said:
“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it is spoken, whether it is a majority of one per cent or 20 per cent. When the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.”
Some in the House say the margin of victory does not matter. “In a referendum,” they say, “the winner takes all—one more vote is all you need to impose the most ideologically pure version of what you argued for.” I respectfully suggest there are great dangers in assuming that the 2016 referendum result—just 52:48—was a mandate for a tungsten-hard no-deal Brexit, which is now one of the two obvious alternatives to this deal. Those who advocate that would do well to remember that, had the EU negotiators simply offered David Cameron a genuine emergency brake that did not dismantle the freedom of movement principle but provided a sensible derogation, it is likely we would have voted to remain.
This deal is a compromise. That means it has positives and negatives. The positives are these. On goods, the EU has accepted that the UK should have a bespoke trade deal, with no tariffs, fees or charges and no quotas. On services, the EU has accepted the principle of arrangements for financial services, which, importantly, will be based on equivalence. British nationals will be able to travel freely without a visa, EU directives will no longer have direct effect and so on.
Against that backdrop, is it any surprise that the deal has been loudly welcomed by Rolls-Royce, Siemens, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the chief executive of UKHospitality? The BioIndustry Association supports it—I could go on and on. The chief executive of BAE Systems, which employs many people in Cheltenham, welcomed the transition period, and GE Aviation, a significant employer in Gloucestershire, said:
“Ratification of a withdrawal agreement would provide business with the certainty it needs. In contrast, a disorderly ‘no deal’ exit in March would present considerable challenges for our operations, supply chains and customers.”
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the experts and others he prays in aid, whose views I certainly give great weight to, have been too easily dismissed? People either call them fake news or say, “They would say that,” or, “They don’t know what they’re talking about; we know better.” There is a dangerous anti-business trend in what some people say, and we must resist it.
Alex Chalk
And this is the Conservative party, which listens to business and wants to stand on the side of people who create prosperity in our country. By the way, if we want to deliver social mobility, we will do that through jobs and enterprise, and by raising tax revenues so we have the greatest possible public services.
Of course there are negatives to the deal; we have heard about those. Concern is rightly expressed about the Irish backstop, but, as the Secretary of State indicated and the Attorney General has said, it is an instrument of pain for both sides. What is a backstop for us is a back door for them. Northern Ireland would have the advantage of being able to access both the single market of the EU and the single market of the UK. Mainland British businesses would be incentivised to relocate to Northern Ireland to supply their goods into the EU. Meanwhile, the process of negotiating trade deals would become a nightmare for the EU, as it would not be able to clarify the frontiers of its single market and the British taxpayer would not be paying a penny piece.
The fact is that all trade deals require some kind of backstop. Canada-plus and Labour’s suggestion—it wants to be inside the customs union but outside the single market—would require one, too. I have heard much criticism from the Labour party. Some of it is fluent and cogent—we get all that—but, with respect, criticism is easy. As a quote probably misattributed to Teddy Roosevelt goes, complaining about a problem without proposing a solution is called whining. Labour does not want a second referendum, does not want an extension and criticises the Government, saying there is no way they could get meaningful changes to their deal, yet it suggests that it could get a whole new deal by 29 March—a “strong single market deal”, although that is completely lacking in detail and clarity as to what Labour would require. [Interruption.] It is indeed a “unicorn” prospect.
A hard Brexit, I would suggest, is simply not an option. There are concerns about Ireland, and I have real concerns about it. Of course it is necessary to “aim off” with respect to some of the polls, but there is a real risk that if there is a hard Brexit the appetite for a border poll will increase, and there is then a real risk of a united Ireland. There are great risks from a second referendum as well, which I cannot go into now. However, there is an opportunity for us to do something sensible and unlock the wall of investment that is poised over our economy, and I shall be voting for the deal.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I have faced many challenges in the two decades for which I have sat in the House, but Sunday 7 August 2011, the morning after the Tottenham riots, was by far the greatest. Walking on broken glass, past burnt-out cars, homes and businesses, comforting men and women who were still in their pyjamas, I saw the place where I had lived for my whole life turned to ashes.
Many members of the community were urging me to say that the killing of Mark Duggan by police, which had sparked the riots, justified that rage: that the families made homeless, the burnt-out buses and houses and the looted shops were worth it. They told me I had to say that that wrong was right. It was not easy, but I had to look members of my community in the face, tell them that the violence was a disgrace, and condemn it unequivocally. Why? Because we have a duty to tell our constituents the truth, even when they passionately disagree. We owe them not only our industry but our judgment. We are trusted representatives, not unthinking delegates, so why do many in the House continue to support Brexit when they know that it will wreck jobs, the NHS and our standing in the world?
This is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the Brexit debate. Most Members now recognise that in private, but do not say it in public. Brexit is a con, a trick, a swindle, a fraud. It is a deception that will hurt most of the people it promised to help. It is a dangerous fantasy that will make every problem it claims to solve worse. It is a campaign won on false promises and lies. Both Vote Leave and Leave.EU broke the law. Russian interference is beyond reasonable doubt.
By now, every single campaign promise made in 2016 has come unstuck. Brexit will not enrich our NHS; it will impoverish it. Our trade deal with Donald Trump will see US corporations privatise and dismantle it, one bed at a time. Even the promises on immigration, which has so greatly enriched our country, are a lie. After Brexit, immigration will go up, not down. When we enter into negotiations with countries such as India and China, they will ask for three things—visas, visas and more visas—and they will get them, because we will be weak.
Then there is the myth about restoring parliamentary sovereignty. The last two years have shown what a joke that is. The Prime Minister has hoarded power like a deluded 21st-century Henry VIII. Impact assessments have been hidden, votes have been resisted and blocked, and simple opponents of Government policies have been bullied and threatened to get into line. Even when we forced a meaningful vote, the Prime Minister cancelled it, certain we would reject her disastrous deal—and oh, we will reject it, because it is a lose-lose compromise that offers no certainty for our future. All that it guarantees is more years of negotiation, headed by the same clowns who guided us into this farce in the first place.
We are suffering from a crisis of leadership in our hour of need. This country’s greatest moments came when we showed courage, not when we appeased: the courage of Wilberforce to emancipate the slaves in the face of the anger of the British ruling class, the courage of Winston Churchill to declare war on Hitler in the face of the appeasers in his Cabinet and the country, and the courage of Attlee and Bevan to nationalise the health service in the face of the doctors who protested that that was not right. Today, we too must be bold, because the challenges that we face are just as extreme. We must not be afraid to tell the truth to those who disagree.
Friends on this side of the House tell me to appease Labour voters in industrial towns: the former miners, the factory workers, those who feel that they have been left behind. I say that we must not patronise them with cowardice. Let us tell them the truth. Let us tell them, “You were sold a lie. Parts of the media used your fears to sell papers and boost viewing figures. Nigel Farage and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) exploited the same prejudice to win votes. Shame on them. Immigrants have not taken your jobs; our schools and colleges failed to give you skills.
Hospitals are crumbling not because of health tourists, but because of decades of austerity that ground them down to the bone. People cannot afford a house because both parties failed to build, not because Mohammed down the road moved in. Wealth was hoarded in London when it should have been shared across the country.
Blame us; blame Westminster: do not blame Brussels for our own country’s mistakes. And do not be angry at us for telling you the truth; be angry at the chancers who sold you a lie. As Martin Luther King said long ago:
“There comes a time when silence is betrayal.”
So just as I speak plainly to the Government this time around, let me speak to the Opposition about some home truths. There is no left-wing justification for Brexit. Ditching workers’ rights and social protections and ending environmental co-operation is not progressive. This is a project about neoliberal deregulation; it is Thatcherism on steroids, pushed by her modern-day disciples. Leaving the EU will not free us from the injustices of global capitalism; it will make us subordinate to Trump’s US.
Socialism confined to one country will not work. Whether we like it or not, the world we live in is global. We can fix the rigged system only if we co-operate across border lines. The party of Keir Hardie has always been international. We must not let down our young supporters by failing to stand with them on the biggest issue of our lives.
If we remain in the EU we can reform it from the top table: share the load of mass migration, address the excesses of the bureaucracy and fix inequalities between creditor and debtor states. We can recharge the economy. We can refuel the NHS. We can build the houses we need after years of hurt. Hope is what we need: remain in the EU; give Britain a second opportunity to decide.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
I do not want to use my speech to talk about parliamentary procedure or the detail of the various options to withdraw from the EU—I will leave that to others to do. What I want to talk about today is trust: not trust in MPs, which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has just alluded to, but trust in the electorate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke about.
In 1997, I, like many others, was unhappy that Tony Blair became Prime Minister, but I did not start campaigning for a people’s vote to remove him, and the same was the case in 2001 and in 2005. In fact, I think the situation was the same in 2010, 2015 and 2017, as the Opposition would have been disappointed about the outcome of the election, but they did not start campaigning for a people’s vote to overturn it. That is because we accept the results of votes in this country, and we should accept this one.
Turning to the point of this whole debate, in June 2016, the British people were given a say on our future relationship with the EU through a simple in/out referendum. We chose to leave. The numbers who voted or the margin of the majority are irrelevant; the question was put and the answer was given.
It should come as no surprise that, in a contest, some people will be disappointed. We should not dismiss their concerns; we should instead try to be as accommodating as possible. That is what people have been talking about today, but we must stay true to the referendum result—we have a duty to do so.
Antoinette Sandbach
Does my hon. Friend accept that when Vote Leave registered, it was registering for a simple “out” vote, but said it was not binding itself to a particular form of out, and that it would be up to MPs to decide how that result was implemented?
Royston Smith
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, but it is not for me to talk about what Vote Leave decided; it is for me to talk about what I think and what my constituents think.
Everyone in the Conservative party, including my hon. Friend, stood on the 2015 manifesto. They promised to give the British public a straightforward in/out referendum. Everyone who voted in December 2015 to legislate for that referendum did so promising to honour the result. Everyone who voted and campaigned in the referendum did so in the spirit of what had been agreed before the vote took place, and again promised to honour the result—at least I assume that they did. Can we really imagine that people were wandering around campaigning for in or for out, but saying to their constituents and friends, “Whatever happens, if we don’t win, we’ll just renege on the result”? Of course they did not do that; they campaigned saying they would honour the result. Everyone in here who voted to trigger article 50 and everyone in here who voted to pass—[Interruption.] I am not saying that everyone here voted in that way. I am talking about everyone who did vote in that way—[Interruption.] If Members listen, they can intervene on me. Everyone in the Chamber who voted to trigger article 50 and who voted to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Act did so because at that time they were doing what they promised their electorate they would do.
In 2017, both two major parties stood on manifestos that promised to honour the result. In my constituency, the Conservative and Labour candidates shared 93% of the vote. Two parties that promised to honour the result of the referendum shared almost the entire vote while all the other parties lost their deposits. Almost every Conservative and Labour Member has promised to deliver Brexit at one time or another. At the time, those who supported remain accepted the wording of the referendum. At no time did they say that the result needed to have a particular majority, or that the consequences needed to be spelled out. Why was that? Quite obviously it was because the remain voters thought they would win. I thought they would win, even though I campaigned for and voted to leave.
The country has followed this soap opera for two years. It has joined us on this journey, which began with the referendum and was followed by a prime ministerial resignation, a new Prime Minister, a general election, Lancaster House, Florence, “Brexit means Brexit”, “No deal is better than a bad deal”, a delayed vote, a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister and, finally, “This deal, no deal or no Brexit at all”. No Brexit at all is not an option. This place voted for the referendum and promised to honour the result. This place voted to trigger article 50 and, in so doing, reconfirmed to the British public that our democracy is more important than political convenience. We all accepted the terms before the campaigns started, and if Members fail to implement the result or attempt to frustrate the will of the people, they are not democrats and I have no idea why they are here.
I would like to offer some clarity for those Ministers who like to appear on the “Today” programme saying that people like me know what they do not want but not what they do want. I met the Prime Minister and I could not have been clearer to her: I want a deal but, as it stands, I do not want her deal. The Prime Minister promised to protect our precious Union. Her deal does not do that, because it treats one part of our Union differently from the other parts. So, for those who repeat that people like me know what we do not want but not what we do want, I will say it again: take the backstop out, and I will compromise again and reluctantly vote for the deal.
This has been a dark time in our nation’s history. It has laid bare the divisions in our country and, by reneging on the promises we made to the British public, we would plunge our country into an even darker place, and I would not blame the voters if they never trusted a politician again. Many of the people outside this place believe that politicians are untrustworthy. They think that we spend most of our time talking to ourselves and not caring about what they think. If we fail to honour the result of the most important vote in living memory, we will prove them right, and I will have no part in that. I made promises to my constituents and I fully intend to honour them, whatever that takes. I would rather lose my seat, honour my commitments to my constituents and preserve what integrity is left in this place than behave as so many others are, in their own self-interest.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
My friend, Lord Ashdown—Paddy—is being buried today in Somerset, so I hope that the House will allow me to speak about this deal as I think Paddy would have done. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) might not have known about the burial service, but my friend Paddy would have been able to apply his critical faculties to the deal and judge it on the basis of what was good for this country. That is what he would have done. I worked for him for nearly 30 years, beginning as his economics adviser, and when he talked about Europe, he talked about the way in which countries needed to co-operate and work together. Internationalism was in his liberalism. He talked about how, working with other countries, this country could regain sovereignty and regain control over global capitalism, and the multinationals that sought to undermine the interests of individual countries, people and corporations. His view was that we were stronger and had more control. That was his approach to the European Union.
However, things went much deeper than that. Paddy was a soldier and a diplomat, and he brought that experience and those beliefs to the European question. It was his commitment to peace and to patriotism—he loved his country—that made him such a strong pro-European. We see that in his books and his speeches when he talks about the dangers of rising nationalism and protectionism around the world. He worried about Trump, Bolsonaro and Brexit, and he thought that Britain being in the EU was one of the best ways of combatting those rises in nationalism and protectionism. In his work in Bosnia, he talked about how the EU’s institutions were bringing peace not just within that country, but within the Balkans. Indeed, if we look at what is happening, the EU is one of the magnets that is ending the hostility between those countries, and it can play a key role. It is an engine for peace, as it has been across Europe.
Of course, as man who was born in Northern Ireland, Paddy would look at the threat to the Good Friday agreement with serious concern. Nearly 3,600 of our countrymen and women died in the troubles, but few have died since the Good Friday peace agreement. People inside and outside this House should think carefully about anything that puts that at risk. Paddy certainly did, believing that the EU was a way of gluing people together and moving away from past hostilities.
I was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change when Putin invaded Crimea and the Bolsheviks went into eastern Ukraine. There were crisis summits. The European Energy Council got together to work out how to deal with the matter, and one way of undermining Putin was to reduce Russia’s oil, coal and gas exports by ensuring that the EU became more secure by going green and by trading within itself, making it less dependent on Russia. That meant less money into Putin’s pockets and therefore fewer soldiers and rockets. That was how the UK could exercise soft power through the EU. Europe’s energy security strategy was written in my office in Whitehall, because we were able to use soft power to try to promote security and peace. That is what the EU is about, and that is why Paddy supported it.
If Paddy applied those same thoughts to this deal, he would say that it is hopeless. This deal would lock Britain into bad diplomacy—diplomacy based on transactions and deals, not relationships. In the modern world, a country should have deep relationships with its neighbouring states. When I was in the coalition Government, I talked about having joint Cabinet meetings in Berlin and in London with the German Government. That did not go down too well on the Tory Benches, but I was trying to ensure that relationships were built on understanding between Ministers, not on press releases. I am afraid that this deal locks us into transactions between now and whenever we find out what Brexit actually means, which will be when the political declaration is eventually negotiated. Beyond that, however, whenever we get to the end of those negotiations—the Secretary of State is dreaming if he thinks that that will happen at the end of the implementation period—we will still be in a much more transactional relationship with the EU, which will damage this country and its interests. Paddy would think that this deal is not in this great country’s interests.
I hope that the deal will go down next Tuesday—I will vote against it—but it is unclear what will replace it. There is a clear majority against no deal. Is there a majority for some other deal? I do not know. Perhaps Norway-plus will attract some people. I find it deeply unattractive, because we would have all the costs and rules of the EU, but no voice and no vote. That is why—I am happy to admit this—putting the decision back to the people is a good idea. I hope that they will change their minds. If the people vote on this deal based on what they have seen over the past two and a half years, they will have a lot more information than they had in 2016. Some say, “The people knew what they were voting for,” but I really do not think that that is the case. Over the past two and a half years, there has been the most immense opening of people’s minds to what actually happened. In addition, more than 1 million young people did not get a vote in 2016, and they would like a say in their future. I believe that the case for another vote is made.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
In September 2014 the people of Scotland were confronted with a choice between remaining a member of the United Kingdom and becoming an independent state. The debate that preceded that vote brought politics alive in Scotland, and it did so precisely because it went to the heart of our national identities and challenged the idea that we could be proud of being both Scottish and British.
As the House knows, in that referendum, the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom and, ever since the result was declared, it has been incumbent on those of us who believe in our United Kingdom to continue defending it. It is in that context that I considered the withdrawal agreement, because I would never vote for anything that threatened or undermined the integrity of our United Kingdom. I respect colleagues who have taken a different view on this matter, and I fully understand the concerns they have expressed because I initially shared those concerns. I have always been clear that, when we leave the European Union, as I voted to do, we leave as one United Kingdom.
Members may know that my constituency is home to the strategically and economically important port of Cairnryan, which handles approximately 45% of Northern Ireland’s trade with the rest of the UK. Any border down the Irish sea or proposal to carve off Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom would be hugely detrimental to the port, which would be wholly unacceptable.
Although the withdrawal agreement is clear that nothing in it prevents the UK from ensuring unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK’s internal market, I welcome the specific commitment in the paper published yesterday that the Government will enshrine a guarantee to that effect in primary legislation. I do not want a situation to arise in which the UK needs to enter the backstop arrangement, and the text is clear that the backstop is neither the preferred nor the expected outcome. With the right level of political will and determination, it is entirely possible to reach an agreement on our future relationship before December 2020 and I, like the Prime Minister, sincerely hope we do.
I would have preferred a provision in the agreement that would enable us to end the backstop unilaterally, but that is not in the agreement. Although article 1(4) of the Northern Ireland protocol explicitly states that it is intended to apply “only temporarily,” I cannot help but think that inserting an end date, even one as far away as 2023, would focus both parties’ minds on finding a solution. I have no doubt that, when the solution comes, it will come down to money, as I am quite confident that the technology already exists. The proposed backstop arrangement is uncomfortable. However, I am reassured by the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. Like him, I believe that, compared with the other courses available, this is a reasonable, calculated risk.
The Prime Minister has accepted that this deal is not perfect, and we have to recognise that the withdrawal agreement is only one step in the process of leaving the EU. The Environment Secretary correctly said in his opening remarks that we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good, and I agree. I also believe that, if David Cameron had come back with this deal before the referendum, we leavers would have taken it. For me, Norway-plus, no deal and a second referendum are all less appealing than the deal before us. Even worse is the possibility of a Government led by the Labour Front Bench team who, despite having plenty of time to come up with something, have absolutely no plan for Brexit.
As a result of this deal, we will again become an independent coastal state. In December 2020 we will be free to decide who has access to our waters. We will be able to create a support system that meets the needs of our farming and rural communities, including my own in Dumfries and Galloway. In Scotland the withdrawal agreement has the support of organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation.
In 2016 a majority voted to leave the EU. The Prime Minister has been clear in her determination to deliver on that result, and we leave the European Union on 29 March. After much deliberation, I have reached the view that this is a deal that delivers for the whole United Kingdom without undermining the integrity of our precious Union. It is a deal that moves Brexit forward. It is a pragmatic compromise that means we leave the political union, the customs union, the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. It ends free movement and it ends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the United Kingdom. It is also a deal that reflects the closeness of the referendum result, by leaving the EU at the same time as protecting our jobs and our economy. Despite my backstop reservations, I support it.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
There is no ideal way forward now that will satisfy all. I will not be voting for the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister has negotiated. I am afraid it is a mess, and the way she has handled Brexit from the beginning of her premiership has been fundamentally flawed. If we go forward on the basis of her deal and the political declaration, I believe that terrible damage will be done to the jobs, life chances, finances and prospects of my constituents, and to many other people in the rest of the country.
Colleagues from across the House have talked today about compromise, but the Prime Minister and her Government have made no efforts to seek a consensus across this House, or across the country, on the best way forward. From the beginning of her negotiations two years ago, she has focused her efforts on keeping her warring party together, rather than looking to do what is best for the country. She has not sought to set out a range of Brexit options and lead a great national conversation about the best way forward amongst potential options or available choices; she has simply ruled out the ones that she does not think some in her party will support. She has not sought to heal the divisions exposed by the toxicity of the referendum campaign, and the fears and divisions it exploited, or to reconcile the differences between those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain that have been revealed as a consequence.
The Prime Minister has purposefully since run down the clock, to prevent anyone but a small group around her from having a say on the way forward. Her negotiating red lines were more about keeping her most uncompromising Brexit-supporting colleagues on board and preventing them from removing her from office, than about finding a consensus across our nation, but they have had the effect of ruling out sensible and less damaging Brexit options, and now we are being told that it is her deal or no deal.
In my view, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Government should rule out no deal straightaway. It would be the most irresponsible, self-harming stupidity, and should not be contemplated. Seeking compromise and finding agreement across the House has not been a focus of what the Government have tried to do, and we need to recall that when they now stand up and say they want compromise.
Let us recall that the Prime Minister did not want the House to have any meaningful say on Brexit at all. She wanted to trigger article 50 without allowing a vote in the House; only public-spirited citizens and the courts stopped her. She wanted to negotiate a deal and implement it without a meaningful vote in this House; only parliamentarians across parties have stopped her. She wants the Executive to take back control of our laws, with its full panoply of Henry VIII powers, not Parliament. Now, with her deal in deep trouble, she talks about compromise, but she has been trying to run down the clock and threaten us with catastrophe if we do not do her bidding, pulling the meaningful vote to waste another month—all to give the impression that it is her deal or no deal.
What are the consequences of the Prime Minister’s deal? The National Institute of Economic and Social Research said that the White Paper version of her deal would cost the UK up to £100 billion by 2030 and cut GDP by 4% compared with the status quo. No deal, which she threatens the nation with, would be even worse, seeing a fall of up to 9% of GDP, on the Government’s own forecasts, over the next 15 years. GDP would be cut in the north-west by 12% in the next 15 years, hitting manufacturing particularly hard.
My constituents are already reeling from the seemingly never-ending austerity imposed by the coalition and Tory Governments. Poverty is rocketing upwards. Food bank use is becoming institutionalised. The services towards which my constituents used to turn to get help and support at Liverpool City Council and Knowsley Borough Council are severely compromised; both had two thirds of their money removed by the Government. My constituents cannot afford the economic dislocation of the Prime Minister’s Brexit, much less a no-deal Brexit.
My constituents did not vote for this. They voted, like me, to remain. Research shows that, since that time, sentiment has moved further towards remain, currently standing at about 64-36, and that accords with my own sense of what is happening in the constituency. My own survey shows an 80-20 split for remain. I accept, of course, that it is not as scientific as opinion polls and research; it is a self-selecting set of people who reply, but they are my constituents. When I asked about the PM’s deal, 73% said that Brexit should be stopped altogether, with only 2% supporting her deal. A further 7% said that it was a bad deal but the only one available, so only a tenth were willing to back her deal. Some 80% told me that they expected leaving the EU to be bad for their families and an even higher number said it would be bad for the country, yet that is what the PM now expects me to vote for. I will not do it; I cannot do it.
I will not vote to make my constituents poorer just to get the PM off the hook on which she has ineptly but willingly put herself. The UK faces the biggest political crisis we have had in my lifetime—precipitated by the 2016 referendum, the subsequent general election, when the PM lost her majority, and the botched negotiations. The Government have no majority in this House, yet persist in acting as though they do.
Enough is enough: Parliament must take back control. It is showing welcome signs of doing so. There must be no more delaying tactics from the Government. If the deal goes down next week, Britain must find a new way forward. If we cannot have a general election because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011—although the possibility has yet to be tested—we should extend or revoke article 50, to enable a people’s vote on the deal, with the option of remaining in the EU.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
On 23 June 2016, I voted to leave the European Union—not as a Member of Parliament, as I had not yet been elected, but as a resident and parent of four daughters who has always lived in Copeland and hopefully always will.
I do not describe myself as a Brexiteer. I voted to leave because I am proud and desperately ambitious for this country. That pride and ambition are based not on an out-of-date rose-tinted nostalgia, but on fact. The success of our country and our place in the world was secured well before we joined the European Union, and as part of the EU our success has continued. But over recent decades the north of England, despite being responsible for so much of our industrial and technological prowess, has not had the investment, particularly in infrastructure, that it should have had to really achieve its full potential.
Much of the dialogue around Brexit has focused on process. If I am honest, the mantra of control of our laws, borders and money motivates me less than what we are all surely trying to achieve. We are striving for a successful UK. If the outcome, aim and prize of Brexit is a more successful country, I do not want to scupper the very educational establishments and businesses that will be absolutely critical to achieving that outcome.
To be clear, I voted to leave the EU, I want to leave the EU and I respect our country’s democratic process. I look forward to Parliament’s getting this agreement over the line. As I see it, this is a skeletal framework. Each and every one of us has the responsibility to put the flesh on the bones. The key points of leaving are met in the deal: free movement, the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and the vast budget payments to the EU all end. We are leaving the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. Critically, citizens’ rights will be protected both here in the UK and in the EU, which means that the benefits of healthcare, pensions and other important matters will be protected.
Most importantly, we will have the time, through the implementation or transition period, to adjust. Time will allow us—the people and businesses on both sides of the channel—to adjust to the new arrangements, but the period is limited to December 2020. For my constituency of Copeland, that time to adjust is essential for the nuclear industry. As we leave Euratom and move to a UK regime under the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the extra time afforded by the transition period will ensure that all the safeguards officers, procedures and equipment are in place, along with the bilateral agreements with other countries. Given the international and collaborative nature of the nuclear industry, that is vital. It is especially critical for Cumbria because 27,000 of the 87,000 people who work in the nuclear industry live in Cumbria and depend on that industry. Just about every household in my constituency has a family member who works in or for a business that is connected with the nuclear industry. That is why I want the security that the withdrawal agreement brings.
The industrial strategy and nuclear sector deal contains much cause for optimism. For more than 60 years, Copeland has led the way, and it was the first place in the world to generate electricity for the grid when Calder Hall was opened in 1957. This Government are the first in a generation to construct a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, and I am determined that we will also get Moorside power station built in Copeland.
We have an undisputed need for more low-carbon electricity, and an undeniable, globally respected, safe nuclear capability in Copeland. I will do nothing to damage that, and everything I possibly can to grow that capability further. We must secure more research and development in advanced and small modular reactors. We must export more of our current decommissioning operations, and increase exports of skills, components, products and processes that are working well at Sellafield and being developed by our superb nuclear supply chain. Equally important is securing our farming industry, and I am concerned that extortionate tariffs would not help, but hinder the incredibly hard-working farmers and their businesses. The common agricultural policy will come to an end, to the delight of many Cumbrian farmers. Again, I want to do all I can to ensure that we deliver a UK farming policy that works for Cumbrian farmers and avoids damaging tariffs.
Our place in the world is based on a number of factors that I fear could be hindered, not helped, without this agreement. It is based on the number of top universities we have in this country, the creative industries, award-winning books and films in our language, our time zone, our national resolve, our military might, freedom for the great institutions and think tanks, and the legal and financial economy that has grown in this country. It is based on our road, rail, sea, air and digital connectivity. I will be supporting the agreement.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I rise almost a month to the day since the original meaningful vote on the Brexit deal was suddenly called off by the Government. Since then, nothing has changed. No new documents have come forward, and no further clarification or revisions have been made. I cannot support the withdrawal agreement and political declaration of our future relationship with the EU because the deal does not protect workers’ rights or trade union legislation. The document I have seen, which describes what the future relationship between the UK and the EU will look like, is only 26 pages. Those pages contain a few meaningless phrases about future legislation. On protecting workers’ rights they state that
“the UK will consider aligning with Union rules in relevant areas”.
As a lifelong trade unionist, I must ask what kind of deal to protect workers that is. Why have negotiations only achieved a vague wish list of the so-called “high standards”? The only thing that seems clear and certain is that this deal will make the country poorer and severely affect areas such the Black Country.
In the 2016 referendum, people did not vote to be worse off. The Attorney General has confirmed that this deal lacks safeguards to prevent UK employment rights from falling behind those of neighbouring EU countries. I am being asked to put on a blindfold and walk meekly into the Lobby, believing that the Government will guarantee the rights of working people, and that if I do not do that it will lead to a no-deal Brexit. It is unfair of the Prime Minister to seek to hold Parliament to ransom in that way. It means that working people have no way of knowing what the UK’s future relationship with the EU will look like, and how it will impact on their lives.
The Government have no record of standing up for the rights of working people in the UK—indeed, many Tory MPs have spent years undermining them. The Cameron Tory Government tried to introduce an anti-trade union Bill to take away many of the unions’ hard-won rights. The Government fought for years to defend the imposition of employment tribunal fees, which were scrapped only when the Supreme Court found them to be unlawful following legal action by the trade union Unison. Ministers are more likely to speak of a bonfire of red tape. The Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), wrote in 2012:
“To restore Britain’s competitiveness we must begin by deregulating the labour market. Political objections must be overridden. It is too difficult to hire and fire and too expensive to take on new employees.”
The Prime Minister has refused to rule out scrapping the working time directive, the agency workers directive and the pregnant workers directive. All those are in the EU and currently protect UK workers. After the 2016 referendum, the trade union movement was willing to sit down with the Government to discuss its members’ concerns, but the Prime Minister has failed to engage with and listen to trade unions and the millions of their members in this country who need a union to protect their working conditions and contracts.
We now have a deal that nobody wants. When article 50 was invoked, the Government should have called together the leaders of all the political parties in order to form a cross-party Brexit consensus to help in the negotiations with the EU. I understand that the Government have to rule, but this is a matter of such national significance—perhaps the most important event since the second world war—that it will affect our lives and those of generations to come. A strong leader would have reached out to politicians beyond their own party, rather than keeping it to a small clique within Government. Instead, we have a deal that satisfies nobody—neither leavers, nor remainers.
As politicians, we will be blamed for this mess, but the only people to blame are those who have been involved directly in the Brexit negotiations. It is for these reasons that this deal cannot command my support. If it cannot achieve the support of Parliament, the country will need to find a real alternative.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith). I would like to focus my remarks on the rationale for the decision I have taken, which I believe to be in the best interests of my constituents and this country, on the vote next Tuesday.
I have received plenty of advice from constituents, as I am sure all hon. Members have, much of it contradictory, reflecting the division in the country since the referendum. Many have asked me to represent their views, which, given the range of views and the physical impossibility of being in both Division Lobbies at the same time, it is not possible to achieve. I stood on a manifesto in 2015 that pledged to respect the result of the referendum. I voted to remain in 2016, but 57% of my constituents voted to leave. I have accepted the referendum result, and indeed I stood on a manifesto in 2017 that pledged to do so. That is why I voted with the vast majority of Members of this House—498 to 114, with a majority of each of the Conservative, Labour and Democratic Unionist parties—to invoke article 50.
The Government have had the most complex negotiations to undertake of any Government since the second world war, as evidenced by the sheer length of the EU withdrawal agreement and the number of pieces of secondary legislation that the European Statutory Instruments Committee, on which I sit, is currently scrutinising. There have undoubtedly been many challenges presented by the EU and its 27 other members throughout the negotiations. On some of these we have prevailed, and on some we have not.
Although I would not have started the negotiations by accepting the EU framework for the negotiations in the way we did, I have accepted that leaving the EU after 43 years of membership, during which our laws, regulations and standards have become increasingly intertwined, will require a negotiated deal, and negotiation requires compromise. I spent 20-odd years negotiating as an adviser to companies around the world, so I know that every negotiation comes down to the last moments, when the final compromises have to be made. We are now at that point. The word “compromise” has been used across the Chamber today, and it was particularly well encapsulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).
The reason why we are debating this issue so long after the invocation of article 50 is primarily its complexity, but coming a close second is the lack of consensus in the House, which is partly a result of the balance of arithmetic in the House following the 2017 election. We still do not have a consensus, which is why we have had to delay the debate. The only consensus in the House was on the decision to invoke article 50 in the first place.
We have heard from Conservative Members who have a strong tradition of seeking to leave the EU, and I respect their conviction and consistency of purpose. Some of them, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) earlier and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) just now, have made it clear that they are willing to compromise and support an orderly withdrawal if the Irish backstop issue can be removed or time-limited. I hope the Government will find a way to give them satisfaction before we vote next Tuesday, but if not, I believe that a willingness to compromise among Members from all parties is essential in order that we can do our duty as representatives of the people of this country and bring this matter to an orderly conclusion.
Opposition Members have told us that they will not support the deal because it does not reflect what they would like to see in a deal. Some have been straightforward in acknowledging that they wish to ignore the referendum and remain in the EU, but others have not, and they have not come up with any pragmatic suggestions as to what could be done to improve the deal. The official Opposition Front-Bench team has been consistent about one thing, and one thing only: it will not do anything at all to help, and will only try to bring about a general election, because that is its purpose. Opposition Front Benchers are not interested in compromise, whatever their warm words earlier. They have made no suggestions whatsoever on how to improve the deal.
The prospects are extremely alarming to those watching the debate from outside and for the countless businesses and constituents who are urging us to get on with it and provide some certainty to the nation about how we leave the EU in an orderly fashion. That is why, despite the deal’s imperfections and my concerns about aspects of it, I shall support it in next week’s vote. I will not support any proposal to have a second referendum, because that would be to deny completely the initial referendum, and it would perpetuate the division in this country that we can frankly no longer afford.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
When I started to write this speech, I truly did not know where to start, so I will try to explain my feelings and views on this madness as bluntly and simply as possible.
Since long before the ink had even dried on the text, the Prime Minister has been trying to create the narrative that it is a choice between her deal and no deal. But the Prime Minister quite clearly has other options beyond her deal and no deal—she could ask for an extension of article 50; she could keep us in the single market and the customs union; or she could take the choice back to the people—so to say that it is her deal or no deal is a piece of nonsense. She is failing to say to the public that she has deliberately manufactured things to appear that way, in a cynical attempt to save her own skin.
I will vote against the Prime Minister’s deal, because of the simple fact that it is an appalling deal for my constituents. That is not just me looking at the deal and making a decision on their behalf: since the deal was announced, thousands of my constituents have written to me, and more than 97% of them have asked me to vote against it.
To explain my thoughts and feelings a wee bit better, I must go back a few years. I often hear Members from both sides of the House—I have heard this today—accuse the Scottish National party of not respecting the result of the 2014 referendum or the 2016 referendum. They are wrong. The key difference between us and those who criticise us is that we do not fear referendums. We do not fear democracy. We do not fear holding up our vision and hopes for a better Scotland to the electorate for them to at least consider. Most importantly, we are not afraid to learn lessons. My presence and that of my SNP colleagues in this Parliament serves as evidence that we do respect the outcome of referendums because when Scotland voted no to independence, we said, “Okay. We didn’t convince you. That’s fine. So long as Scotland wants to stay in this British Union, we will respect that. But let us fight to make sure that we get everything that we were promised.” If anything, it seems that it is the winners of both referendums who are terrified of being held to account for the promises they made.
As I mentioned earlier when I intervened on the Secretary of State, I went to the House of Commons Library, where the wonderful staff dug out this HM Government booklet that was sent out during the Scottish referendum. The Government, of course, were a Tory coalition—the Secretary of State corrected me—but Tory none the less. And I have to be honest about this booklet: there is a stoater on every page. Page 1 speaks of
“All the advantages of the pound”.
That is the same pound that had an 18-month low. Later, the booklet mentions “Safe savings and pensions”. I wonder whether WASPI women would agree with that. It went on to state that there would be
“More support for public services”,
which was followed by an austerity agenda. And then there is the quotation I mentioned earlier:
“As one of the EU’s ‘big four’ nations, the UK is more able to protect Scottish interests in areas like agriculture and fisheries.”
The last page reads:
“Together with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland has created one of the world’s most successful families of nations.”
Now, that is a legitimate point of view, but it is one that does not hold up to scrutiny. Call me biased, but this does not feel very successful right now. If you are an EU national, a nurse or a student, or if you are working on the minimum wage, I doubt this feels successful. If you are a lorry driver in Dover, I imagine it feels even less successful.
I believe in independence for Scotland for democratic, logical and moral reasons, but when Scotland voted no to independence, at least we came here for a genuine fresh start—to try to make this Union work better and find some compromise where possible. After all these promises and all the precious Union chat that is dished out by the British nationalists of this place, when Scotland votes to remain in the EU, it is cast aside as irrelevant because it was a UK-wide vote, where Scotland was treated as a region. The people of Scotland watched as our Scottish Government tried to make sensible suggestions and compromises with the UK Government with regards to Brexit, such as asking for continued Scottish membership of the single market and the customs union. This was not even considered.
If Unionist Members truly believe that Scotland should be subject to an English and Welsh EU result, they concede that we are not a family of nations and that, to Westminster, Scotland is no more than a province; or they could live up to their partnership of equals patter and recognise that the second largest nation in this family of nations has outright rejected leaving the EU, and show us the respect that we are due. Either way, this hypocritical doublespeak will not wash much longer with Scotland. As with most things on the Government’s plate these days, time is running out. And to be honest, who knows how much longer Scotland is going to stick about?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I shall support the Government on Tuesday because the withdrawal agreement delivers on the referendum while gaining control of our money, laws and borders. If people want to know what the UK is getting out of this agreement, they should look once again at the opening remarks of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Since the withdrawal agreement was announced, I have engaged with many of my constituents, from those who want to leave with no deal and cut all ties with the EU to those who were arguing for a second referendum. Of course, this agreement is not going to satisfy either of them. It is a negotiation, so it has to go between two parties. I have done enough negotiation in my career as a businessman to know that neither party gets everything they want out of a negotiation. Having said that, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the backstop, and I hope that my colleagues will be given some comfort on that issue in the coming days.
I also recognise the lack of detail in the political declaration because, of course, that is the next stage; that is what we come to once we accept the withdrawal agreement. Based on my business background and the evidence that I have heard from the business community as a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I think this deal is right for our country.
Of course, the voice of business is important. Some of my constituents have told me that it is too loud and that big business is running the show, but I have to say to them, and to the Opposition, that when big business does well, workers do well. There are more people in jobs, there is more secure employment, people in work get more hours, and there are more promotion prospects. When business does well, pensioners do well, because its profits fund the pensions that people receive. When business does well, the economy does well, and generates the wealth to do all the things that we want Governments to do. It is therefore vital that the views of business should be listened to.
There are important voices from big business and from smaller businesses. Only today, I have heard from the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership, which surveyed businesses across the region in December, and 60% of them argued that Brexit is negative. They are concerned about pricing uncertainties as a consequence of the value of the pound, reductions in sales, the administrative burden on exports, loss of confidence and delayed investment plans.
As a west midlands MP, I have particular concerns about the motor industry. Coventry is its historic home. The business declined due to issues in the ’70s, but in recent years it has been resurgent. London Electric Vehicle Company in my constituency has built many of the electric vehicles that people are seeing around the streets of London, but regrettably—I hope this is not an early case of postponement of investment—it took a decision only yesterday to delay the introduction of the electric light commercial vehicle. We have seen tremendous improvements in Jaguar Land Rover under the ownership of Tata, but there has been more bad news on that today. Members will rightly point out that that is due to changes in the diesel legislation and a downturn in the Chinese market, but it is also linked to Brexit. In addition to the company itself, we must remember the 200,000 companies in the supply chain.
We have seen investment in the UK from Japanese companies. This morning, the Business Secretary talked on the radio about Margaret Thatcher’s welcome to Nissan in the north-east. In our evidence session in the BEIS Committee, the managing director of Toyota reminded us of why it was here. Margaret Thatcher said to the head of Toyota, “Come to the UK, where you can build cars as part of the European Union and export to the European Union as a free and open arrangement.” If we do not accept this deal—if there is any danger of us crashing out—how are we going to attract that level of investment in the future? In fact, the Prime Minister of Japan is in the country today. He has spoken about the need for predictability and stability. I want to be able to say to him that Britain is the best place to set up and grow businesses.
The Committee heard from other manufacturing sectors. We heard from aerospace that the deal is not perfect, but the longer it takes to get certainty, the more likely it is that investment decisions will go against the UK. The food and drink sector spoke of real concerns. Business welcomes the language in the declaration but is bothered about business that would otherwise have come to the UK going overseas. Only yesterday, the chief executive of Rolls-Royce, which has a plant in my constituency, stated in a letter:
“I have been clear that a deal is better than no deal for Rolls-Royce, our customers, suppliers and employees. Agreement of the Government’s deal will provide certainty which all businesses require and will ensure an orderly withdrawal from the European Union.”
Getting the right deal for business is phenomenally important to the UK. I encourage my hon. Friends to bear that in mind. I also ask Opposition Members to think long and hard about the consequences for the businesses in their constituencies if, as a consequence of voting down the deal on Tuesday, we end up with no deal.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). Like many other Members, I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents in the last few weeks about the meaningful vote. The vast majority of those people, whether they voted to leave the EU or remain, have asked me to represent them by voting against the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, as they all agree on one thing: this is a bad deal.
I voted to remain in the EU because, among other things, my region is a net gainer from the EU, and our economy is heavily dependent on trade with Europe. However, 59.5% of voters in my constituency wanted to leave, and across the whole borough, which incorporates the Tynemouth constituency, 53.7% voted for Brexit. I was shocked and disappointed by the result, both locally and nationally, but I accepted it as a democratic result.
I know that the vast majority of voters I spoke to before and after the referendum all held very sincere views, whichever way they decided to vote. A number of voters in North Tyneside said that they voted to leave so that we could take back control of our borders, laws and finances, but during the referendum campaign, many voters on both sides told me of their concern about immigration and freedom of movement. Many realised the absolute need for EU workers across all roles in our economy in the north-east, including on our farms and even in the abattoir in my community. However, on the other side, there was grave local concern, because in recent years a number of employers have taken advantage of the fact that they could employ EU workers on short-term contracts directly through employment agencies based outside the UK, undercutting the going rates of pay and bypassing local skilled workers in the process. I challenged those procedures with the employers, as they were fair neither to the EU workers, who were being cheated of pay, nor to our local workforce, who desperately needed these jobs.
Leave voters could not be swayed by the argument made by or to me on behalf of many businesses—large and small, each important to our local economy in creating work directly and via the supply chain—that the uncertainty of Brexit threatens their businesses and the local economy. It is estimated that 140,000 jobs in our region depend on trade with the EU. The North East England chamber of commerce has pointed out that the EU remains the region’s top export market, worth 57.5% of overall trade, or £1.8 billion, compared with 40% nationally.
The chamber’s third quarterly economic survey results for last year reported less international trade activity and cited Brexit uncertainty as the key reason, which resulted in a 6.75% downturn on the quarter and 0.35% on the year. The chamber’s survey for the last quarter of 2018 highlighted that, while scores for growth in domestic sales and a rebound in exports showed business performance and confidence improving towards the end of the year,
“uncertainties and concerns surrounding Brexit, chiefly expressed in terms of future market conditions, demand shocks and increased costs are dampening many businesses’ confidence.”
It is a sad reflection that this deal goes nowhere to meeting Labour’s six tests, does not protect jobs, workers’ rights or environmental standards and gives no certainty of frictionless trade to our businesses. My constituents, whether leavers or remainers, have made it clear that this deal does not meet their hopes and expectations for our region’s future. I want the best for the people of North Tyneside and for the whole of the UK. I will support the views of my constituents and of those on my Front Bench and will therefore vote against this deal.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, which is important and, to some degree, painful for me, because I voted to remain in the European Union in the 1975 referendum and in 2016. I have not changed my view. My constituency voted to remain, but this was a national poll, and I respect it. My duty, as I see it, is therefore to ensure that we leave the European Union but do so in a way that, as has been observed by many Members, recognises the narrowness of the result—something that works for those who voted to remain as well as those who voted to leave, and for the majority of my constituents. The margin therefore, as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs observed, is not a mandate for a hard Brexit. It is, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), not a mandate for some Teflon-coated departure from the EU. I suggest to the House that it is a mandate for a managed, orderly and considered withdrawal that keeps close and important ties in our economic interests.
My manifesto, my personal message to my electors, was that I would respect the outcome of the referendum, but would do so in a way that protected their jobs, businesses and livelihoods. I will support the Prime Minister’s deal for that very reason. It is the best opportunity and the best alternative we have to deliver that. No one else has put a viable alternative plan on the table. With every respect to Opposition Members, the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition will provoke a general election and find anything even remotely better is risible to the point of being beyond parody. We have to get on with this deal.
For me, that means in particular dealing with arrangements for the financial services sector, which is critical to my economy. It is critical to the economy of the whole of the UK. About 11% of the economy is generated from financial services alone. We are an 80% services economy. We must get this right. Some 36% of my constituents work in financial and professional services. The total financial services sector contributes some £72 billion in tax revenue. Everyone I speak to in that sector—since I have been in this House, I have worked closely with the City of London, City UK and others—says to me, “We would have preferred to have remained, but with a transition period, above all, we can manage it.” Everyone in financial services, everyone in the whole of the services sector and beyond whom I speak to says, “The key thing is we must have transition. We cannot have a crash-out.” With nothing else on the table, this deal is the only appropriate way of avoiding that crash-out. It gives us time to negotiate the future arrangement. That is the really important thing: not just that we withdraw in an orderly fashion, but that we then have time to develop the key future relationship with our EU friends and neighbours, who are always going to remain very significant trading partners for us.
World trading patterns may well change and other parts of the world may become more significant, but the EU will always remain a very, very important partner for us. The truth is that trade deals elsewhere, as we all know, take time to develop. That is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) observed, even with America and the EU, who are willing partners, never mind in other cases. Some emerging economies—India, China and others—have been particularly resistant to the liberalisation of their markets in services. Having a transitional period is therefore absolutely vital. That involves compromise. I have some issues about the backstop, but I think it is workable, as I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State. There are means whereby we could seek future clarification on the legal definition of “temporary” within the protocol. As has been observed, compromise is not a bad thing in politics. In fact, we should be positively saying more often that compromise is a mature thing. It is a mark of mature politics and that is what the Prime Minister has sought to achieve.
Throughout my constituency, people come up to me and say the deal is not everything they wanted, whichever side they were on, but it keeps the show on the road in terms of the economy. They say that it enables them to develop our new relationship in a sensible way. The Prime Minister deserves credit for working hard to try to get it through. They say, “Do your best to back her.” That is what I will seek to do.
If this deal were to fail, the worst possible result would be to leave without a deal. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who I am delighted to see in his place, is right to observe that were that to be the case, it is important that this House and Parliament be active participants in deciding the way in which we go forward. Even better would be to remove that uncertainty for businesses—one constituent of mine says that that is pressing in terms of his own firm’s viability—at the earliest opportunity, vote for the deal and then get to work moving forward. The onus is on this House. If we fail in that regard, all other options perhaps do have to be considered, and we might have to go back and seek the advice of our electors. I do not want to do that, because that would be a failure of maturity and judgment in this House. Taking back control means us stepping up to the mark and taking a decision. In my book, that means supporting the Prime Minister’s deal.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My constituency voted in 2016 to leave the EU. Although I voted to remain, as a democrat, I believe that it was right to accept the will of the people, and so I voted to trigger article 50 in March 2017. I believe, however, as a democrat and a politician who uses evidence in their decision making, that it is not only my right but my duty as an MP to consider new evidence as it becomes available. That is how a democracy should work. The new evidence I am talking about is the draft withdrawal agreement and political declaration, evidence from my constituents and expert analysis, and I would like to take each in turn.
To be where we are, two and a half years after the EU referendum, following a month in which absolutely nothing has happened, is a shocking indictment of this Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) spelt out the situation yesterday: months of torpor, the Government, with their strategy and their red lines, digging themselves into a hole they cannot get out of, and now, unfortunately, this appalling deal. I have gone through the nearly 600 pages that amount to the withdrawal agreement. It covers very little other than the backstop agreement, the rights of EU citizens, how much the UK has agreed to pay the EU and the transitional arrangements. It is clear that we will become a rule taker, not a rule maker. How on earth is this taking back control?
On so many levels, too numerous to mention, we will lose out. As Lord Kerr of Kinlochard said in the other place last month, the political declaration is a blindfold Brexit and a gangplank to the unknown. It is nothing more than a non-binding, meaningless wish list that will do nothing to bring the certainty that our businesses, economy and people need. Our future relationship with the EU beyond 2020 still has to be negotiated.
My constituents, to whom I have been listening very closely, are growing more and more concerned. There is evidence, not just from those who have been contacting me but from those I have been meeting regularly in my door knocking and at my surgeries, and evidence also from recent polls, that their views are shifting. There is also the evidence from data and expert analysis. I know some people do not like using experts, but this is a time when we really should value them, as I think we are doing, given the experts on the Benches over there.
On this expert analysis, I want to cover two aspects in particular. The first is the evidence of the unlawful activities of the Vote Leave campaign and the second is the evidence from recent economic analyses. We cannot ignore the fact that the Vote Leave campaign was recently found guilty of significant breaches in spending. In addition, there is evidence of potentially illicit involvement in their campaign by a foreign power, in both the funding and the spreading of propaganda and disinformation during the referendum. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee report in the summer exposed this and was most compelling. I have argued since that there was enough evidence to start an investigation.
The second—and for me key—aspect is the impact on the economy. We already have significant poverty and inequality across the UK. Whatever analysis we take, from the Bank of England, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Treasury and so on, all exit scenarios show that the economy will shrink. All show no deal as disastrous, a “close deal” or Chequers-style deal almost the same, and Norway somewhere in the middle. There is further evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that certain sectors will be particularly affected and that we will be poorer as individuals. We really should be referring to this.
The impact of reduced growth on our public finances —on public spending and services—will be significant. It is estimated that by 2023, we will be borrowing £15 billion a year more as a result of leaving the EU. This is at the same time as spending demands—for examples, for pensions and social care—will be increasing. Our NHS is already in crisis. How will this affect the resources it needs? We already know that the £350 million a week for the NHS was a lie. Social care is also in crisis. As a result, there were 50,000 emergency admissions of people with dementia in 2017. How much more will that figure be as a result of Brexit and what will happen with a dwindling pot for universal credit? In the last Budget, the Government restored only half of what they cut in 2015.
For all the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support the Government’s motion and I will vote against the deal. I will also support a vote of no confidence, if one is tabled. If not, or if it fails, I urge the Government and colleagues to consider a citizens’ assembly as a way forward. Such assemblies have been used in various countries as democratic circuit breakers on contentious and complex issues. A citizens’ assembly could detoxify Brexit and help to restore confidence in politics as a form of democratic renewal. It could be a precursor to a new people’s referendum, and could even consider the questions for such a referendum. I hope that all this will mean that we need to extend article 50. I know that that is anathema to many, but I think it is a way forward.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
When we relinquished responsibility to the British people on 23 June 2016, the people, in the largest democratic exercise in this nation’s history, answered. They bravely rejected the easiest option, and now we, as legislators, must be brave, too. The great British resolve demonstrated, in a single act—an act that made me proud to be British—a will to self-govern and to push back against further integration. The British people did so not because of some fear of migrants, as some would have us believe, but in the belief and hope that our nation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland could unshackle itself and once again stride out into the world.
The withdrawal agreement and the deal represent a failure to truly comprehend the scale of the disfranchisement felt by many working people. For some, leaving the EU is not a priority, but the Government have misjudged the resolve of those who care deeply about it, and the instruction that they have given. The Prime Minister and the negotiators staked all their chips on immigration and fundamentally misunderstood the fact that the vote to leave was about more than that. It was an expression of self-will and self-government.
If we fail to listen to those concerns, we will make the gravest of errors. We will rightly be judged by our actions in the coming days, and I will not put my name to something that sells the UK short. Like many of my colleagues in this House, I have constituents who have never voted before but who saw the opportunity to take part in an historic democratic event. That huge but silent group of people felt that the systems and arrangements within the EU no longer worked for them, and they saw the referendum as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to use their voice for change. I will not ignore them.
Before I move on to the withdrawal agreement, I will raise some specific concerns about the implementation period. The north Cornwall sea is a productive mixed fishery, which has a number of fish that are known as choke species. Early next year, the discard ban will come into effect, and our Cornish boats will be tied up when they reach their quota limits, through no fault of their own.
The withdrawal agreement allows for the implementation period to be extended. Any extension would be devastating to an industry that has suffered for years under the deeply unpopular common fisheries policy. It would be impossible for me to ask fishermen in my constituency to consider signing up to that when they have been under a 40-year stranglehold from Brussels. They need access and improvements to their rights now, not in two years’ time. Any extension of the implementation period would be completely unacceptable. We know where we want to get to on fisheries but in the 585-page withdrawal agreement there are more pages devoted to the pension rights of EU civil servants than there are to fisheries. That has not gone unnoticed in places such as Cornwall.
I cannot support the backstop set out in the withdrawal agreement. No independent country could or should allow trade policy to be set by a third party. Far from offering control, the backstop would mean that the UK ceded control on an unprecedented scale. No businessperson would enter into a contract without a break clause or review date. No member of the public would enter into a mobile phone contract without a break clause or end date, in which the conditions could be changed while the contract was in place. Signing up to the backstop would place a sword of Damocles over this Parliament and Parliaments to come.
In short, it is my view that the backstop, if it is implemented, will be used as a stick with which to beat the UK and force us to accept whatever terms the EU wants to trade on. How can we return to the British people two and a half years since they gave us an instruction and offer them a relationship worse than the one we are already in? We can leave the EU by triggering article 50, but we will have no way of exiting the backstop.
President Macron has already made it clear that he wishes to exchange fisheries access for trade. The UK Government should not be in that position. I am told that if we have not reached a deal by the end of the implementation period, we will have a choice between extending the transition period and entering the backstop. That is like picking a favourite Kray twin. I am not in the business of doing that, and it is not what Governments in this country should be doing.
I have heard people say, “Let’s put this issue to bed. Let’s vote for this withdrawal agreement and get on with it.” If we vote for this deal, far from solving this issue for a generation, we will extend the implementation period, lose our sovereignty and enter a backstop with an arbitration panel. We will be talking about this issue for 10 years. People will rightly ask, “What’s your plan? What should the Government do?” We should mandate staged payments of our divorce bill to ensure we get a better trade outcome, we should put an end date on the implementation period, and we should either completely remove the backstop or, at the very least, time-limit it.
This is now a matter of trust. Do we trust the EU to follow through with delivering a trade deal after the Government have burnt through all their leverage? Do we trust the EU not to place us in a backstop we cannot get out of? These issues are too important to leave to trust alone; they must be made conditional in the legally binding text of the withdrawal agreement. It is a simple fact that, at this time of division in Parliament and the country, the British people need us to deliver on the specific mandate they gave us back in 2016.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). I, too, will vote against the deal next week, but probably for different reasons.
Earlier this week, more than 100 Back Benchers from across the political divide met the Prime Minister to stress the economic self-harm that would be inflicted by a no-deal Brexit—a point the Business Secretary made today and earlier this week. I was of course grateful for the Prime Minister’s time, but I sat there thinking, “Could things have turned out differently if this meeting had taken place two years ago?” If she had reached out to Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and others instead of spending all that time negotiating with her party and giving too much ground to the extreme Brexiteers, who always put ideology before people’s jobs and livelihoods, we might be in a very different place.
That, of course, would have involved compromise on all sides, not just in the Conservative party, and it certainly would not have pleased the right-wing Eurosceptics on the Tory Benches, but the Prime Minister might have brought on side Members from other parties. I believe, for example, that there is a majority in the House for continued membership of the customs union, because most Members understand the importance to our economy of having no delays at the UK-EU border and of just-in-time manufacturing. However, due to the Government’s lack of cross-party working, she faces pretty certain defeat next week.
It was totally irresponsible to delay the vote in December and run down the clock. The Government have wasted a month seeking reassurances on the Northern Ireland backstop that have yet to materialise, but they have done nothing to address the concerns of hon. Members from different parties about the economic impact of the deal.
Businesses tell us that the lack of certainty is already leading them to decide either to invest elsewhere or to hold off investing in the UK. The delay has also meant an eye-watering amount being spent on planning for no deal—an eventuality that the Prime Minister and most of her Cabinet in reality will not countenance. Just think of all the things we could have done with that money to improve people’s lives—preventing homelessness and rough sleeping; hiring extra doctors, nurses and teachers; and putting more police officers on our streets.
The Government like to lecture us about acting in the national interest, but I am afraid they have put party interest before the national interest at every turn. Now they are trying to blackmail us into voting for this deal or crashing out without a deal. I am sorry, but it will not wash. I cannot, in all conscience, vote for a deal that will make my constituents poorer and the economy smaller. I cannot remember a time in British history when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor recommended a course of action that they knew would make people worse off—and that is according to their own economic analysis.
There is a simple reason the Government’s deal does not please either those who voted remain, such as me, or those who voted leave, as we heard from the hon. Member for North Cornwall. On the one hand we lose sovereignty, control and our seat at the table; on the other, the deal is worse for our economy than the current arrangements. The Government made a huge mistake very early in the negotiations by laying down the red lines that we must leave the customs union and the single market. They simply have not levelled with the British public.
Exciting as they may sound, trade deals with countries around the world, even if negotiated quickly and in our favour—which is by no means certain; look at the President of the United States—would not make up for the trade that could be lost with the EU, our biggest trade partner. In trade, geography matters. As business has made clear, it is not just a no-deal Brexit that would be catastrophic. Anything short of staying in the customs union would threaten just-in-time manufacturing in, for instance, the aerospace and automotive industries, and the integrated supply chains that have built up over so many years.
The other huge failing of the Government is that they have not addressed the causes of Brexit. They have done nothing to bring our divided country back together. They have done nothing to address the sense of loss in many of the communities, including those in my constituency, that voted for change. They have done nothing to tackle the regional inequalities that drove the Brexit vote.
The Government have refused to come up with a plan B to be implemented if the deal fails to win a majority next week. However, talking to colleagues on both sides of the House, I sense that there is a cross-party mood in favour of finding a way forward, and coming together to find an alternative. I am not sure exactly what that is yet—[Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but I think that much more cross-party work is going on between Back Benchers than anything the Government have done.
We must have a chance to consider all the options, which include going back to the people; the so-called Norway-plus arrangement, in which we would stay in the single market and the customs union; and an extension of article 50. If the Government will not come up with a plan B, it is incumbent on us to do so, because the prosperity of our constituents depends on it.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I rise to speak in this important debate as the Member of Parliament for arguably the most pro-Brexit constituency in Scotland: 54% of my constituents voted leave. Although I voted remain—only just, after much soul-searching—and continue to respect the views of those who voted remain and would still prefer to remain, I firmly believe that we in the House have a duty to carry out what the majority in Banff and Buchan, and indeed in the UK as a whole, voted for in the 2016 referendum.
In the 2017 general election, 56% of voters in Scotland, and 85% across the United Kingdom, voted for parties that were committed to delivering on the democratic will of the British people—to leave the EU. The people of the United Kingdom have given us a clear mandate to leave the EU, and leaving the EU is precisely what the withdrawal agreement delivers.
When I publicly declared my support for this deal, I was immediately confronted by social media ideologues saying, “Ah, but have you actually read the agreement?” And yes, I had read the agreement. In fact, I am supporting it precisely because, when we look at it as a whole rather than taking single lines of text out of context, which usually happens on social media, it is clear that it delivers what the British people voted for.
Some argue that this agreement is not the best deal that could have been made with the EU. Perhaps it could be said, with the benefit of hindsight, that certain aspects might have been negotiated differently, but that is in the nature of negotiations. The outcome is rarely perfect, and, as other Members have pointed out, there will always be some compromise. That said, this agreement—an agreement that is available to us now to facilitate a pragmatic transition towards the opportunities that Brexit presents—will deliver on the result of the 2016 referendum, bringing an end to freedom of movement, introducing an ability to sign trade deals with others, bringing an end to vast annual contributions to the EU budget, and bringing an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
We will be out of the one-size-fits-none common agricultural policy, allowing us to develop our own fit-for-purpose agricultural frameworks and policies, working with devolved Administrations to develop a system that works in the interests of farmers and rural communities. Only today, we all, as Members of Parliament, received letters from the four different presidents of the farmers unions across the UK illustrating the risks identified by farmers from a no-deal situation.
It will come as no surprise to Members that I also mention that we will be out of the common fisheries policy—a “big, fat opportunity”, as described just yesterday by Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. It is an opportunity for fishing communities such as those in my constituency.
Since being elected last year, I have been consistent in my fight to get the best possible Brexit deal for the fisheries sector. In that time, the Government have confirmed that we will be leaving the CFP when we leave the EU and will become an independent coastal state like Norway, Iceland and even the Faroe Islands. I have pushed for assurances that we must not cave in to EU demands that any future trade agreement be tied to continued free access to our waters. Despite the best efforts of Michel Barnier, President Macron and the fishing nations of the EU, there is nothing in this agreement that provides this free access to them. We have seen the anger and disappointment shown by EU fishermen precisely because this withdrawal agreement does not deliver the continued free access that their negotiating team promised.
Despite what is often asserted by politicians on the Opposition Benches, this withdrawal agreement does not represent a betrayal of Scottish fishermen. In fact, I find it extremely strange that the SNP and others are so keen to declare such a poor outcome for our fishermen when the future fisheries agreement has yet to be agreed. The fishing industry can see through the doom-mongering. In fact, during a recent meeting I had with local representatives of the fishing industry, I was asked by one of the processing sector’s key leaders in my area to pass on a message to my colleagues across the House. That message is to stop using fishing as an excuse not to accept this deal.
Yesterday, in evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, Scottish Seafood Association and National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations stated their support for the withdrawal agreement. Like them, I am supporting this agreement as the best means to move towards the best possible Brexit outcome. While I recognise that it is not perfect, we must not let perfect be the enemy of the good. I believe that this agreement is better than no deal and certainly better than no Brexit. This agreement delivers on the democratic will of the British people to leave the EU while delivering an outcome in the national interest.
Many people have expressed concern about the backstop. Although I share many of those concerns, such as the lack of a unilateral mechanism for the UK to leave such an arrangement, I have made my decision on a balance of risk. The backstop would come into effect if the UK and the EU had not agreed a solution to the Northern Ireland border within the implementation period. Neither the UK nor the EU has a desire for the backstop to be enforced, and maximum focus should be on achieving the agreement on the future economic partnership by July 2020.
On top of the moves this Government have made in providing reassurances to the fisheries sector—that we are to leave the CFP and become an independent coastal state, and that there will be no trading off of access to our waters for favourable trade deals—I am sure Ministers will forgive me for reminding them that even after we leave the EU I will continue to campaign for the support of and investment in an industry that is so critical to our coastal communities.
People in Banff and Buchan voted to leave the EU because, as well as the other benefits mentioned by me and others in this debate, Brexit presents such a great opportunity for our fishing industry and our communities, and this deal is a good first step towards making those opportunities a reality.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I rise to speak as someone who voted remain in the 2016 referendum and I am astonished to find today’s debate has been dominated by the use of the word “compromise”, not because I do not agree with compromise but because for two and a half years we have had no sign of compromise, particularly from the Prime Minister—no attempt to reach out across the House, no attempt even to reach out across the Benches of her own party. So I am astonished suddenly to find, two and a half years later, that the deal on the table—the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration—is being presented to us and we are suddenly being told that we have to compromise. It seems to me that compromise has any meaning to the Prime Minister only when it relates to her deal and is on her terms.
I stand as somebody who did not vote for the article 50 Bill. As a result, I was accused in the media and by hard-line Brexiteers of being a traitor, but actually the reason I did not vote for the Bill was that I did not think that enough time had been given to building the necessary consensus across the House to make the process work. I believe that those of us who took that line have been proved correct.
I have repeatedly voted for amendments to legislation that want to deliver a deal that keeps the United Kingdom in the single market and the customs union. I am one of perhaps only 100 MPs who have done that repeatedly as legislation on Brexit has gone through the House. On every occasion, we were told that we were traitors to the cause of Brexit and denying the will of the people, but those votes were an attempt to compromise and to arrive at consensus on the best way forward, in the national interest and in line with the vote that was delivered in 2016.
Now, my colleagues and I on the remain side who do not like this deal are suddenly being told that we are on the extremes of the debate. There is nothing extreme about wanting to stay part of the largest trading bloc in the world, and there is nothing wrong or extreme about voting against a deal because it promises to make the country poorer.
The Prime Minister drew Brexiteer red lines around her negotiations, and because of that the deal before us includes a political declaration that gives no clear indication of the way forward for the long-term trading relationship. That means that if we get a new Prime Minister or another Brexit Minister in six months’ time, there will be no guarantee that we will not end up with a hard Brexit of the kind that could take about 7.6% off GDP. This is a blind Brexit, and it is impossible to listen to the language of compromise and to go along with it on the basis of a political declaration that gives us no clear shape for the way forward.
The problem is that the Prime Minister’s approach to the negotiations has effectively boxed the Government into a corner, with nowhere else to go. Parliament must not be intimidated or threatened. MPs who genuinely believe—not because of their ideology but because of a genuine belief—that the closest possible relationship with the European Union is the right way to go must be given the right to vote against this deal without threats or intimidation. That is really important.
If Parliament decides next week not to support the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, it is the responsibility of the Government, not Parliament, to present their plan B. In that context, it will be incumbent on the Government to start talking seriously to Members of Parliament on both sides of the House to establish the way forward.
My feeling, however, is that there will be no consensus, because of the Prime Minister’s approach, which has driven the Government into a corner, and because of her Brexiteer red lines. We are going to be in an impasse, and on that basis, the only way forward is to go back to the people for a people’s vote. Colleagues say that that denies the will of the people, but we now know what leave looks like. Two years ago, at the time of the referendum, we did not know that. We were presented with fantasy promises about what leave would look like, none of which has been delivered. The people therefore have the right to have the final say and to give their informed consent on whether this agreement should form the basis of our future relationship with Europe.
I say to those on the Government Front Bench that I will be voting against the agreement next week, but if, before the vote next Tuesday, the Prime Minister were to offer a people’s vote in the form of a final-say referendum, I would seriously consider voting for the motion on the basis of an amendment that would give us the referendum we are looking for. I do not think that the Government will do that, but it will be on the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s heads if they refuse to listen to the views of people in this House and refuse to understand that the people of this country want a final say. The polls are telling us that, and it is for this Parliament to listen to the people and go back to the people.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I was brought up to believe strongly that the EU was a force for peace and prosperity. My maternal grandmother, whose parents had been badly affected in two world wars, is still a great believer in the European Union. My father has spent his career embedding British values in European projects. I am an Erasmus scholar, and I used to work for the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. I am also a linguist of sorts, although my daughter did say the other day, “Mummy, you think you speak Italian. Sadly, nobody else agrees.” I cut my political teeth in the events leading up to 1989, when students from around the EU acted together to overcome communism, which was really exciting for an 18-year-old.
So, I was a remainer, but stronger by far than my respect for the EU is my love for this nation, for our institutions, for our hard work, for the rule of law, and for the common law, in which I have spent my whole career working. I believe in our flexible—if I can cheekily say that to you, Mr Speaker—but stable constitution, and in a robust democracy that has endured for centuries, and that is why I cannot support a second referendum.
I wonder whether my European Research Group colleagues have ever read to the end of the fabulous leaflet that was delivered to all households before the 2016 referendum. Colleagues might remember it, but I bet my ERG colleagues never got to the page near the back, which reads:
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
The back page says, in bold, that
“The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision.”
We must do this.
Colleagues will realise that this is a considerable compromise—to use the word of the moment—for me. It is one that I will make because I respect the decision of my constituents and of others across the nation who voted to leave, but I say to colleagues—particularly fellow Conservative Members—who propose to vote against the withdrawal agreement that they must compromise, too. I politely and respectfully say to Opposition Members, respecting much of what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) just said, that it is ridiculous to think that they could negotiate a better deal from where we are now.
The Prime Minister, for whom I have considerable respect, and thousands of civil servants, for whom I also have considerable respect, have spent two and a half years working hard to get this agreement. It has tariffs at zero. It does quite a lot—not everything we want, but quite a lot—for citizens’ rights. There is clearly a lot more work to do, but it is a fair start, and it is where we are at this minute. I say to Conservative Members that there is a real risk that those who want a harder Brexit will end up with no Brexit at all. As a democrat, I do not believe that that would be the right outcome—although let me say that if there is a second referendum, I will campaign with every fibre of my being. Let us hope that rabbits can be pulled out of the hat in the next week.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman must remember that I am a keeper of ferrets.
Today’s debate has been completely different from the debate before Christmas, during which I set out sensibly—without talking about ferrets—the views of the people and businesses in my constituency. I love the EU, and I love the UK more than the EU, but I love Banbury much more than both. I ask all Members, setting aside both ideology and pride for a minute, if they can, to think about their constituents and the jobs that will be at risk if we head for a no-deal Brexit, which would be a complete disaster. Could we please unite around this deal, which is frankly the only one on the table? Together—I agreed with some of what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said about working together—we could then start setting out a positive vision for a global Britain. Let us vote for this deal and move on.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
In his denunciation of Stalinism from exile in Paris in 1951, the Polish poet and diplomat, Czeslaw Milosz, wrote in his seminal book “The Captive Mind”:
“Men will clutch at illusions when they have nothing else to hold to.”
He was, of course, admonishing his fellow citizens who had sought to convince themselves that any progress was to come from the road to servitude that had been planned for eastern Europe in the wake of two world wars.
As we reflect today on the Herculean tyranny that engulfed the people of Europe in the form of gulags, gas chambers and a wall in Berlin, it is surely right that we ask ourselves whether we really want to embark on the road the Government are asking us to take next week. The Government are asking Parliament to clutch at their illusions. As we consider a document that seeks to sever our membership of the Union of Europe, we should remind ourselves time and again of what that great peace project was born from.
As Europe stood at the gates of hell, as it did for years, great leaders across the continent pulled it back and authored the fragile but imperfect peace that millions of us enjoy today. Those of us who believe in that peace should defend it and guard it with jealousy. After centuries of war among our people, a pan-European social, diplomatic and economic architecture, underpinned by rules, reason and a desire to keep the peace, is what our forefathers gifted to us.
UK citizens, not least in Scotland, have been among the largest beneficiaries and most enthusiastic participants. Just look at the rhapsodic uptake of the freedom of movement. Where once the skies and waters of Europe were filled with warring air forces and navies, now our skies are filled with innumerable airlines packed with people. Our waters and skies were once the scenes of war, and now there is free movement across a market of 500 million people.
Gone are the days of tyranny, war and walls. Instead, a new easyJet generation have had their hearts and minds opened to the continent. We have all been made immeasurably richer by the ability to move around the continent, driven by a desire to do commerce, exchange ideas, experience new cultures and share our own. Surely free movement is an unparalleled triumph of democracy.
Look at what opening up the nations of Europe, and all the advancements of humankind that followed, has done for Europe. Look at what it has done for countries that were once satellite states of the Soviet Union or that lived under one of Europe’s assorted dictatorships. It has transformed nations and economies. Where once stood communism and Nazism, there now stand strong democracies across the continent with a free press, an open economy and civil society.
Freedom of movement is quite literally the living embodiment of the freedom that wars have been fought over, yet here we have a Government presenting the ending of that diplomatic achievement as some kind of gain. Only a fool could think so. Only the historically illiterate could champion the ending of the freedom of movement.
In my constituency there are just under 1,500 EU nationals in active employment, with many more studying or living in retirement. I cannot, in all good conscience, return and tell them that I have voted to end the very right that has allowed them to come here and, worse, that they will have to pay £65—essentially a tax on foreigners—and go through a registration process, all to enjoy the rights that they currently enjoy and have enjoyed for decades.
I foresee Scotland regaining her independence, which I want with every fibre of my being. I believe that the nations of the UK will always be the friendliest of neighbours, looking out for each other and looking out for each other’s interests in the different forums that underpin the international rules around the world.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I will confine my remarks to the issue at hand.
The current constitutional arrangement forbids Scotland from interacting on an equal footing either with our neighbours in the rest of the UK or, indeed, with the other nations of the European Union. We in Scotland can see it every day, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not—we see the cost to Scotland of not being an independent country and member of the European Union. Instead, we are locked in a Union that has little appetite to take Scotland’s interests into account. Nobody is buying the empty platitudes of the “plucky Brits” that once struck a chord at home and abroad. This is the stuff of white noise and it makes us a laughing stock in the capitals of Europe.
I do not want this miserable deal imposed on Scotland, but I also do not want it imposed on the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. It is solipsistic; it is isolationist; and at times it is even capricious—I want nothing to do with it. The deal puts us on a devastating path, as the security landscape across the continent and the wider world is ever more complex. So I will not vote for a deal that discards our security needs—needs that the Government fail to take seriously.
The day when we were originally due to vote on the deal, 11 December, marked five years since the then Yanukovych Government in Ukraine opened fire on young protesters in Maidan Square who wanted to join the European Union. How perverse that this sorry Government would ask us to vote to leave that European Union on the day that marked five years from when the so-called “heavenly hundred” were killed by their own Government for wishing to join the European Union.
I say this to progressives around the UK: Scotland has stood by you since Brexit was voted for in 2016. When Scotland finally—finally—regains its independence and seeks to join the European Union as an independent member state, I say to our progressive friends around the UK: just as we stood by you, we want you to stand with us.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) has made a superb speech. I want to pick up his statement that free movement is very important, and that the economy is very important. I would say that it is more the case that it is free markets that have enabled people to move around the European Union and to go on holidays to other European Union countries. That has really broken down barriers. Also, on the military side of things, NATO has been an incredibly important part of what has kept us together and has brought us peace in our time.
In terms of the debate we are now having, there is a huge question of trust in our democracy and, if we get this wrong, it can damage our democracy. I believe that part of the debate that we have been having has been undermining people’s recognition of our democracy. The referendum was not an opinion poll that people were asked to participate in. It was an instruction from the country to leave the European Union, and it must be seen as such. There are different ways of interpreting that instruction, but I do wonder about some of the things that people say about the referendum.
Some people talk about the influences on the British people during the campaign—they claim that Russia had an influence. Some people allege that the electorate were ignorant or not sufficiently informed. Some of that rhetoric is pretty disappointing. My view is that, in the polling booth, the vast majority of people were responding to their lived experience within the European Union over a period of years or decades. The importance of free markets has just been highlighted. We joined the Common Market. Over a period of years we saw it transform into the EEC, then the EC, then the EU, and now we are on the verge of creating a united states of Europe. We can see the External Action Service. We can see the diplomatic and foreign service side of the European Union. We can see the developing European Union military. We can see these things happening. We can see that, with ever-closer union, there is a track that the European Union is on, and it is a question of whether we go quickly or slowly. We recognise that we are on that track into ever-closer union, so we must decide whether to continue along that track or leave. The British people could see where we came from, where we are and where we are going, and, having seen that clearly, chose to leave.
I believe that the withdrawal agreement will be defeated on Tuesday; there is overwhelming opposition to it, which is not to say that there is any particular support for any other solution. I am very concerned that this defeat will be seen as an opportunity to extend article 50, although we know that the European Union most effectively concludes negotiations towards the end—the last week, day or hour. The defeat might even be seen as an opportunity to cancel article 50, have a fundamental renegotiation and go for the Norway option, perhaps. We have been in this process for well over two years. Can we really tell the British people that we ought to start again and seek a brand new option?
I am even more concerned about having a second referendum; actually, precedent suggests that the time- scale for EU referendums is once in every 41 years. The British people have given their instruction to Parliament. If we disregard the vote, saying that the people were ignorant or not sufficiently well informed by their betters, that will be incredibly damaging to our democracy. We cannot and should not do that. Why would people bother to vote again if this vote was so easily dismissed?
Those who demand a “good, well informed” referendum often give no answer to the issue of what the question would be. From what I can see, there would be three options. Remain would definitely be on the ballot paper, even though it was rejected decisively first time around. A World Trade Organisation-rules Brexit would probably also be on it, as would the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. In that referendum, the Brexit withdrawal agreement and WTO options could get 33% of the vote each, while remain could get 34% and so win. That result would be considered decisive. We do not know where we will end up if we go down the route of having an additional referendum. We should be cautious about being so dismissive.
I believe that we can unite the British people. Their understanding of leave is fairly clear already—most people would understand Brexit to mean taking back control of our money, borders, laws and trade. Most people also want more direct democracy—not referendums, but in terms of voting for the Member of Parliament who makes the decisions.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is nothing short of a tragedy that today we are discussing this totally inadequate deal at the 11th hour, with the threat of “this deal or no deal” still being exercised by the Government, despite there being no majority in the House for no deal. It did not have to be this way.
As many others have said today, the Prime Minister should have reached out across the House to secure a cross-party agreement that we and the country could coalesce around. Instead, she pandered to her own Brexiteers and set ridiculous red lines, which is why I am voting against the agreement. It rules out a permanent customs union with a British say; it does not deliver a good deal on services; it would limit access for British businesses to vital EU markets; and it does not sufficiently guarantee workers’ rights or consumer or environmental protections. There are no guarantees that equivalent arrangements with EU programmes and agencies will survive the Brexit process. There is also a lack of clarity about our security arrangements and what will happen in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the political declaration is so big and conditional that I am surprised any Member could vote for this deal. I cannot understand what they think they are voting for.
I want to concentrate on four areas regarding why I think this is a bad deal, and why leaving the EU is not good for my constituents. First, as others have said, it will make my constituents poorer. The North East England chamber of commerce—not a bunch of remoaners —say that more than half its members believe that leaving the EU will have a negative impact on their company. Treasury analysis from 28 November shows that the north-east will be worse off after Brexit, with a GDP reduction of between 3% and a massive 16%, and with pharmaceutical and automotive industries most at risk. The loss of funding from the European Regional Development Fund for infrastructure and skills development will be a huge blow to the region, and as yet the Government have given no guarantees that the Prosperity Fund will replace that funding for the north-east.
The second issue is university funding. It is no coincidence that the previous two higher education Ministers resigned their positions, because they know this deal is bad for our universities. Universities UK has been clear about what is needed from the Government in terms of guaranteeing access to the EU’s research and innovation programmes and research networks, yet what we see in the political declaration is very vague language indeed:
“The parties will explore the participation of the United Kingdom in the European research infrastructure consortium”.
That is no guarantee whatsoever. The third reason is that the EU provides strong policies that seek to protect our natural environment, heritage, rights at work, and helps us to tackle climate change, but again there is no guarantee from the Government that those policies will be maintained.
Fourthly, I come to Northern Ireland. A few weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister to come back to the House with guarantees to ensure that the Good Friday agreement would not be put at risk by her deal. I therefore read the addendum on Northern Ireland with great interest, but I was saddened because, although it mentions the importance of the unique relationship with Ireland, and of fostering the development of the seamless border that now enables unprecedented levels of trade and co-operation, it contains nothing to say how that will be achieved. All the points in the addendum relate to the operation of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I am afraid I was led to believe that the Government have not realised that the Assembly has not been sitting for two years. We need to hear a lot more from the Government about how they will ensure that the Good Friday agreement—in particular the cross-border institutions and structures that support it—will not be diminished whenever Northern Ireland leaves the EU. The Government have heard from other Members about the issues with the backstop, but I want to hear about the Good Friday agreement.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am sorry, I will not because we are short of time.
If the deal is voted down next week, as we expect it to be, and if there is no general election, the House must have the guts to go back to the country and ask again for people’s opinion on this deal. When people voted in 2016, in good faith, we did not have the details of this deal, and in order to make progress it is important to allow them to be considered.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). She might wish to refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), given her knowledge of Northern Ireland, who made it very clear that this agreement does in fact protect the Good Friday agreement.
I made a promise to my constituents that I would work to deliver the result of the referendum by implementing a pragmatic Brexit. I will be voting for the Prime Minister’s deal, despite my concerns—and I have very many—because of that promise. However, I want to quote my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), who spoke powerfully yesterday. He said:
“There are many Conservative Members who, like me, voted to remain but accept, admittedly reluctantly and with some misgivings, that we are leaving the European Union. We have compromised at every stage of the process to try to find a way to make this work, and the deal before us is as far as I am prepared to go. If some of my colleagues want to blow this up in pursuit of an ideologically purist fantasy, fine—go ahead—but I am done. My patience and good will will be gone, along with the patience and good will of many other Conservative Members.
Would it not be something if, when the history books are written, it emerged that it was owing to the arrogance and belligerence of the hard-line Brexiteers in refusing to compromise that, rather than ending up with this imperfect Brexit, they ended up with no Brexit at all?”—[Official Report, 9 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 472.]
That encapsulates perfectly how I feel. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) that I stood on a manifesto that committed me to a “deep and special partnership” with the European Union, including a “comprehensive…customs arrangement.”
I say to ideological colleagues that after this vote I will have done my duty and delivered on my promise. From then on, my duty will be to do what is best for my constituents and for future generations. Of those constituents, I want to talk about farmers. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Farmers are one of the groups likely to be most affected by Brexit. The first and biggest risk to them is tariffs, and the second is phytosanitary checks. Even Brexiteer Ministers such as the Environment Secretary know the risk. He told the Oxford farming conference about the impact of tariffs, pointing out that there would be no upside—he might have said different things during the referendum campaign, but I cannot comment on that. He said that
“new tariffs would undoubtedly exceed any adjustment in the currency markets”.
We export 15% of our beef and more than 30% of our lamb. Of those exports, more than 90% goes to the EU. A tariff on those goods can be as high as 87% and averages around 40%. That would be devastating for livestock farmers. Eddisbury is a big dairy constituency, producing about 3% of UK dairy. Some 90% of all UK dairy exports were to the EU. A report from the LSE warns that tariffs of between 41% and 74% will be imposed on dairy produce in the event of no deal. The UK managing director of Arla Foods has warned that
“most likely we would see shortages of products and a sharp rise in prices, turning everyday staples like butter, yoghurts, cheese and infant formula into occasional luxuries.”
It would make exports from both sectors uncompetitive and would send my local farmers to the wall. With half of all farms making less than £20,000 a year, and a fifth making no profit at all, such a huge increase in costs would be the death knell for many UK farmers.
Beyond tariffs, non-tariff barriers could hit farmers hard. Sustain noted in its evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:
“Generally, when standards start to diverge then costs start to accrue in tracking the difference between the products. What kind of paperwork will have to be provided? What kind of proof of certification or standard-setting will there have to be, and also what kind of inspection regimes, particularly at borders?”
Those are questions that the farming community is having to wrestle with daily as a consequence of irresponsible rhetoric about no deal. I urge all Members to give some much needed certainty and reassurance to farmers and other businesses across the UK by voting for the deal. It may not be perfect but if Brexit is to be delivered, it is the only way forward.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) said, though, if the spirit of compromise is not present in the House, I will no doubt ultimately join my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) back on the campaign trail. I say to my ideological colleagues that if they do not support this deal, they risk no deal. From now on in, after the vote on this deal, I will vote for the best interests of my constituents, which is definitely not no deal.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This is undoubtedly one of the most important votes that I or anyone else in the House will participate in during our parliamentary careers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) that we should not be here. The very fact that we are where we are, having this debate 78 days before exit day, is a sign of failure. It is a sign that the people have been badly let down by the politicians to whom they look for leadership.
Brexit began as a crisis of the Conservative party’s own making. From the red meat of a referendum thrown to Eurosceptic Back Benchers to the red lines drawn up before a Tory party conference speech, for them it has never been about the interests of this country or of the people we have been sent here to represent. The whole process has been characterised by complacency and, indeed, by an astounding degree of arrogance on the part of some from whom we should have expected better. There was the casual approach to the referendum itself—a vote that was called with not a thought given to the consequences of it being lost—and article 50 was triggered when the country was clearly not ready, just so that we could show that we were “getting on with it”. Even then, as the clock started to tick down towards exit day, we were still not putting in the work and still did not have a clue as to what we wanted from our soon-to-be-former EU partners, let alone having a clue as to how we could go about getting it.
We saw Government Ministers display shocking ignorance, whenever they appeared before Select Committees, before the House or in the media, of the potential consequences of Brexit. The Secretary of State for International Trade said that a UK-EU free trade agreement would be
“one of the easiest in human history”.
The former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), said:
“It is like threading the eye of a needle: if you have a good eye and a steady hand, it is easy enough”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 233.]
I assume the right hon. Gentleman is still searching in the haystack for that oh-so-elusive needle, let alone getting round to threading it.
This idea that Britain is somehow—perhaps because of its history or the empire, or perhaps because we have always punched above our weight as a small island—subject to different rules and can do things a different way is a total fallacy. We cannot dictate terms to the European Union. We certainly cannot tell the people of Ireland what to do these days. We cannot demand trade deals entirely on our own terms. They are deals: they require agreement. That seems to me to be an absolutely fundamental, basic point that so many proponents of Brexit have entirely missed. Freedom is nothing unless we have somebody else who agrees with us and wants to go along the same path. The rest of the world is not waiting breathlessly for us to leave the EU. They are not eager to give us exactly what we want just because it is Britain asking. Any future trade deals will involve compromise and lengthy negotiations.
I have something of an obsession with the pig trotter protocol, which we discussed in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee yesterday with the International Meat Trade Association. I have this obsession partly because of its comedy value, although it is not so funny for the pigs involved. It was first talked about in 2008 and then resurrected by David Cameron after he led a huge trade mission to China. We are still trying to negotiate the sale of pigs’ trotters to China. It is a product that we do not need and that China likes, for some bizarre reason.
The fact that it has been so difficult to get a tiny deal like that in place should be a wake-up call to people as to how difficult it will be to get these fully comprehensive trade agreements with all these other countries that actually do not want exactly what we want. Australia and New Zealand have been pressing us about lamb quotas post Brexit. US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has said that yes, he does want a race to the bottom on standards post Brexit. He does not want to agree to a deal whereby we do not allow chlorinated chicken and hormone-pumped beef into this country. That is why I tabled new clause 1 to the Agriculture Bill so that we can try to avoid that scenario.
I was one of 122 Members who voted against the triggering of article 50. That decision has been more than vindicated every day since that vote. I will vote against the Prime Minister’s deal next week and I will support a people’s vote, should the opportunity arise. It is now the only way I can see to get us out of this mess. That people’s vote would obviously have an option to remain on the ballot paper.
The promises made in 2016 are not going to be delivered, and any Brexit deal will impoverish my constituency as well as the whole UK. No deal would be a catastrophe, but I reject any attempt to use that threat to strong-arm us into supporting the Prime Minister’s deal. Article 50 could be extended or, more sensibly, revoked. Rejecting what is clearly a bad deal does not mean accepting no deal, and it is entirely within the Prime Minister’s power to take no deal off the table.
The choice before us now is not between deal and no deal. The choice is whether we accept Brexit on the terms on which we know it would happen—the terms that the Prime Minister has been able to agree with the EU—or whether, now that we know what Brexit looks like, we still want to do it. This journey began with the British people and it is only right, now that we know the facts, that they choose its final destination.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I am sure that you will remember that famous quote of Dean Acheson, the former United States Secretary of State, who, when addressing the West Point Military Academy in 1962, said that Great Britain had
“lost an empire and not yet found a role.”
Here we are, many decades later, and the fact is that in relation to the continent of which we are a part—this core relationship—we still have not found our role.
There are three fundamental choices available to us and we have to make a decision pretty swiftly about which one to go with. No. 1: we can be fully in, although that would now require a second referendum to overturn the original one. No. 2: we can be fully out and completely separate from Europe, trading on WTO terms. No. 3: we can find a compromise and have what I would call a semi-detached relationship—half in, half out.
Like many colleagues, I have reservations about the backstop, but I will support this deal because we are a semi-detached country by nature. It suits us to have that type of relationship because it is in our DNA. We are a European nation with many close ties with our European neighbours, yet we have the Commonwealth. We have a very strong relationship with the United States and the English-speaking world—with countries that play cricket, football and all the rest of it.
John Major once talked about trying to make Britain a country “at ease with itself”. Leaving through that semi-detached compromise deal may not be perfect in every way, but we would become a country at ease with itself in terms of our relations with our European partners. However, if we go for the other two options, we will not be a country at ease with itself. Having a second referendum would be saying to those who voted leave and want to vote leave again, “Your vote did not count.” That would leave lasting bitterness and great division in our society. Equally, choosing no deal and WTO terms—a very alluring prospect for those who voted on sovereignty grounds—would also leave great bitterness. I want briefly to focus on the latter option because it is certainly growing in popularity in my constituency and in my association. Some may dismiss it, but there is a logic for people who voted on grounds of sovereignty: they want the deal that they believe provides the greatest sovereignty. For many, that is leaving on WTO terms. However, sovereignty is about far more than legal power. It is about agency and power in the real world through the economy and so on.
There are three key points. First, leaving with no deal on WTO terms is based on a fundamental contradiction, which is this idea that we can go and negotiate trade deals. Those trade deals would be with the countries with which we currently trade on WTO terms. In other words, its fundamental premise is that we should upgrade those trade deals to superior preferential terms, and do so by relegating our preferential access to the EU to standard WTO terms.
Secondly, people talk about a managed no deal. This is a free market economy. The idea that by sticking a few billion pounds in Government Departments, we can suddenly have command and control of the UK economy come April is for the birds. We know from history that we cannot manage the market and we cannot manage consumer sentiment. We certainly cannot manage business investment sentiment. That will be so critical in the months after we leave, and it is why we should reject no deal.
My final point on no deal is this. Let us say that we ignore the worst-case scenario, although that is of course a worry for all of us—let us take it at its best. At its very best, someone who advocates a WTO no deal, particularly if they are a hard Brexiteer, is saying that after all this effort, all this campaigning and all these years, the best we can do on leaving is to give British industry standard terms that are, in mortgage terms, the standard variable rate. They are bog-standard, ordinary, plain, common-or-garden trade terms available by default to any country on earth: nothing special, nothing preferential. In my view, that is not good enough for British industry and not good enough for my constituents.
I believe that this deal, for all its failings, does satisfy the requirement of giving us that new semi-detached relationship. We will have strong economic ties with Europe, which are vital, and yet, over time, once we have established frictionless trade—once we have left through a robust withdrawal agreement that secures our departure in a steady state—then, yes, we can negotiate trade deals around the world.
People should not be dismissive of that, because there is a real-life version of being semi-detached—it is called Norway and it is called Switzerland. Whether we take those countries as models or not, we can see that they are prosperous, rich, successful, happy countries that trade in the single market—one through the EEA, the other bilaterally—and yet have trade deals around the world and strong links in the global economy. We can do the same. We should have confidence in ourselves and say that when we get into the long-term negotiations, we will be successful because we will be positive about it and realise that this an opportunity. I encourage everyone to think positively, back the Prime Minister’s deal, and help us to have this happy, steady state.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
So here we are in January 2019 bearing the brunt of David Cameron’s back-of-a-fag-packet politics of 2015. His ill-thought-out plan aimed to appease the Brexiteers in his own party at a time when he thought that he was invincible. That know-it-all attitude is exactly why people turned out to vote leave: they wanted to vote against the establishment.
Never-ending austerity since 2010 has driven a rise in in-work poverty. Our constituents have been hit hard in the pocket. People are fed up and they are angry, with food bank use in Swansea up 50% since universal credit. Life is challenging at the best of times, and being stuck in a Catch-22 situation of spiralling personal debt and stagnant wages means that people have got angrier and angrier. I understand how that feels, because it is why I am standing here. When faced with the lies on a bus and promised a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow—let us throw some unicorns in as well—Brexit was painted as a way out.
But the promised land was not based on facts. In total contrast, as we hear from Scottish National party Members, in the 2014 Scottish referendum, a 400-plus-page White Paper was published called “Scotland’s Future”. It gave a detailed assessment of the impact of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom—not a leaflet, as shown by the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) earlier. Why did those hard facts not exist for us? We did not know what we were voting on.
At the beginning of the debate yesterday, I was taken aback to hear the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) intervene on the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, saying:
“This House is not representative of the people.”
The Secretary of State responded:
“the majority of the House voted to trigger article 50. It is…incumbent on Members…to be clear what they are for.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 393.]
Well, I beg to differ. I did not vote to trigger article 50, and neither did the rest of the 2017 intake. The Prime Minister called a general election to try to convince the UK that she could provide a strong and stable Government. It didn’t work, did it? Members lost their seats—67, I believe. Let us not forget that the make-up of this House has changed considerably since 2016, pretty much like public opinion, which has also changed since 2016. Opinion certainly has changed, as I have seen since I have been the Member of Parliament for Gower, and the electorate has changed as well. Since June 2016, there are 2 million more people in the UK who have reached voting age. According to the House of Commons Library, that is estimated to be 2,400 in my constituency alone.
To add to the confusion about how constituencies voted in 2016, the ballot boxes were not counted by constituency. In my case, Gower was counted as part of the city of Swansea. Across three constituencies, the majority for leave was a mere 3,629. I would call that a marginal win. I took a marginal seat after it was held by a Tory for only two years, and I, along with the other new Members elected in 2017, prove that opinions have changed.
The House of Commons Library’s independent research on the vote estimates that Gower was 49.3% leave and 50.7% remain. That picture has changed significantly since 2016. Like most MPs, I have received a vast amount of correspondence from constituents. When analysed, it gives me statistics of 82% remain and 18% leave. From all that correspondence, 61% are asking for a people’s vote. I realised that I had to test that in the constituency, so I held public meetings. Our mock ballot in each of those meetings showed pretty much the same—80% remain and 20% leave.
Since the 2017 election, this House is the most representative it has ever been, and I am very proud to be here. The Secretary of State says that it is incumbent on Members to know what they are here for, and I want him to know that I know exactly why I am here. I am here to represent the fact that my constituency has not only changed its allegiance to Labour, but it has changed its mind on Brexit.
Moreover, my constituents want the Government to know that small businesses in my constituency such as Rose and Rebellion—a baby carrier business exporting all over the world—have lost 50% of their business directly because of impending Brexit. What assurances will the Government give to protect companies like those that are struggling to compete with America, which is swamping the market?
From the parliamentary logjam to the Government can-kicking, there is no simple answer to Brexit. There is no Brexit that is good for the United Kingdom. This Government have proven that they cannot be trusted and are not capable of winning. My constituents deserve to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I am applying sense and good logic to give us a way out of this logjam. Why can the Government not? That is why I am backing a people’s vote. We need to move this on and get back to the issues.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
When I was elected in 2015, it was on the basis that we pledged to give the people the opportunity to determine whether they wished to stay in the European Union or leave. I for one felt that, having given people that opportunity, it was not for me as an MP to then tell them which way they should vote.
I wrote to every single one of my constituents and invited them to 10 meetings across my constituency before the referendum. I also provided them with information from the House of Commons Library, so that they could make their own mind up. During those meetings, I explained what an article 50 process would look like and what a reformed EU would look like, should we vote to remain. I did not expect to be talking about article 50 again, but, to my surprise and disappointment, given the way I voted, my constituency voted to leave by almost 60:40, and the country by 52:48. I declared my vote on the night because I did not wish to influence any of my constituents. I made it clear to my constituents that, having been elected by the ballot box, which gives me the authority to speak here now, I do not feel that I have the right to then ignore that ballot box when it gives a different determination from the vote I cast.
I swore to honour the referendum result. That is what I believe I am doing and will be doing when I vote for the Prime Minister’s deal on Tuesday. I can then look in the eye those who voted leave and say that I am voting to ensure that we leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, that we will take back control of our borders and immigration, that we will leave the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, that we will leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and that we will stop paying moneys in, save for those agreed in the withdrawal agreement. Equally, I can look in the eye my constituents who voted to remain and wanted us to continue to have a trading and security relationship with the European Union. That is what the withdrawal agreement does and what the political declaration sets out. That is what we have two years to put in place. I feel I can honour that result.
Many of my colleagues will not vote for the deal. Unlike me, it has been their life’s work to see us leave the European Union. The direction of travel that Parliament is currently focused on may mean that they never get an opportunity to vote for leaving the European Union if they do not vote for it this time around. It may well come off the table. Equally, other Members are more persuaded by the argument for a second referendum, or the latest and ludicrous thing I have heard about, which is a “people’s assembly”. That is what I thought I was standing in right now, making this speech. But we cannot delegate our responsibility. This House, by 498 MPs, voted to allow the Prime Minister to trigger article 50. That means we have to take responsibility for the outcome. We have a deal that will give us that outcome. Anything else would be a complete denial not just of the referendum result, but of the vote that night when 498 MPs said that this was the way to proceed.
I am very concerned about the House not agreeing to the withdrawal agreement, because the no-deal scenario fills me with great dread. It is all well and good for many people and many of my constituents to say, “No deal will be absolutely fine. We were warned the worst would happen after the referendum result and it didn’t happen.” However, Bank of England models suggest that the economy will be 11% worse off by 2030 in a no-deal situation. It is all well and good for individuals to say that it will be fine, but they will not be the ones going into the Division Lobby to vote for a no deal—I will. What if it turns out not to be fine? What if I knock on my constituents’ doors to be told that they have just lost their job, are about to lose their house and do not know what they were going to do with their family because it has turned out that it was not all absolutely fine? They would say, “It’s your fault, Huw Merriman MP, because you made that happen.” I will not play Russian roulette with my constituents’ lives, their security and everything they hold dear just because “It may be okay”. I say to all those right hon. and hon. Members who may be willing to take that risk: be careful what you end up playing with.
I take the view that we would be a lot worse off from a democratic perspective if we saw a second referendum, the can being kicked down the road or no Brexit at all. How difficult would it be for us to go back on the campaign trail and knock on the doors in the general election to ask people to put their faith in democracy if we have just denied the democratic result that they thought they had gained in 2016?
Compromise is not a very sexy word, but when we look at the percentages, 52% versus 48%, it was always going to need a compromise to unite those two positions. It is possible for us to leave the European Union, but it is also possible for us to leave and enter into a new trading arrangement. It is also possible for us to look outside the European Union. The European Union is a great 28-country club if you are a member, but not if you are an African country that is getting poorer and poorer because it will not trade because it pulls up the walls. The population of Africa is due to double in the next 25 years. That is where we should be looking, not just for our own future but for their future too, and for a global economy that comes to us. That is why I will support this deal on Tuesday.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Diolch, Mr Speaker. This debate, and the votes that will follow next week, will probably be the defining moments of this Parliament. They will certainly determine Ceredigion’s prospects and prosperity for decades to come. The withdrawal agreement and the declaration on the framework for the future relationship can perhaps be described as the Government’s attempt to convince Parliament to abandon the familiar benefits and certainty of the status quo, and risk it all by embracing the possibilities of the unknown and moving towards a relationship with the European Union whose opportunities are apparently unencumbered by the constraints of reality.
The matter in question is deeply significant and serious. This is our future relationship with our closest and largest trading partner and ally. It is therefore our duty as parliamentarians to challenge the ambiguity and the risks inherent in this deal, especially in the political declaration on the future relationship. As detailed in the Government’s own analysis, the UK will be poorer over the next 15 years under all possible scenarios than it would have been within the EU single market and customs union.
Ceredigion is reliant on the knowledge and rural economies. The education sector alone accounts for 20% of our economic output and sustains around 5,000 jobs in total, more than 2,800 of them directly supported by the county’s two universities. Agriculture is key to wealth and job creation, with every £1 generated translating into £7.40 for the local economy through supply chains and spending. Each job in farming supports another 3.5 in other sectors.
There is a lot of uncertainty at the moment, but there are a few things we can be certain about. We know that the single market is a vital export destination for Welsh food and drink, with more than 80% of exports going to the EU. We know that the Welsh universities thrive on our membership of the EU and particularly benefit from the contribution of staff and students from the EU, as well as from European Research Council funding. We know that both the agricultural and higher education sectors will therefore be heavily impacted by changes to our relationship with the EU and devastated if we were to leave the customs union and single market.
That said, we do not know what the future relationship under this deal will look like, despite our having triggered article 50 two years ago and having debated the matter ever since. During this time, sectors such as agriculture and higher education have been plunged into unprecedented uncertainty, so it is entirely understandable that some find the prospect of a period of stability appealing and therefore the Government’s deal worth supporting. Let us be clear, however, that the proposal is no more than a 20-month stay of execution, not a reprieve. It offers a brief respite, but no assurances for the long term.
Uncertainty over the future relationship will continue to plague businesses and communities throughout the transition and most likely beyond. Far from the detailed and substantive document promised, the political declaration merely sets out a spectrum of potential options. The details will materialise only on the conclusion of yet further negotiations. While the Government have stated repeatedly that they will not entertain the prospect of another referendum, it is unclear what role Members of Parliament, as the elected representatives of the people, will have in the negotiations and whether they will have a role in the ratification of any agreement reached.
Admittedly, the declaration expresses a great deal of ambition for a close trading relationship, but to echo the Brexit Select Committee, ambition is no guarantee of success, and the experience of the past two years does not instil great confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver on such ambition or indeed to engage with others to seek compromise. It has been heartening to hear a lot tonight about compromise. Those who argue that opponents of the Prime Minister’s deal have not offered alternatives are mistaken and have not been listening. Several alternatives have been aired this evening. Back in January 2017—two years ago—a colleague in the Senedd, Steffan Lewis, in co-operation with the Welsh Government, published a White Paper detailing a range of options and a conclusion about what they thought was the best future relationship for Wales and the EU.
Ceredigion voted to remain, and conversations I have had with constituents have given no indication of a change of heart. The Government present us with an offer of embarking on a voyage to an unknown destination, warning that it will leave us poorer and possibly lead to ruin, yet they nevertheless ask us as parliamentarians to relinquish any say over the choice of destination and to renounce all influence over the course charted. Given the reservations I have expressed, this is an undertaking that I cannot in good conscience support.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Thank you for calling me so early in this debate, Mr Speaker. One of the great things about being called at this late stage is that I get the opportunity to listen to other people articulate the case far better than I could. My comments might be slightly briefer as a result of having listened to the other arguments, not least those of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who gave a very impassioned speech, much of which chimed with what I think the people of Walsall North would think. It is unfortunate, however, that I am following the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) and his beautiful baritone. He speaks for a rural community in Wales that is in contrast to the urban industrial one that I represent in Walsall. There are many elements to this argument that need to be represented, although when we vote we will make a binary decision about whether to walk through the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby. I am sure that each of our constituents will interpret that decision differently, in the same way, perhaps, as the 17-odd million people who voted for Brexit each thought that they were voting for very different things.
In my constituency, I have found most recently that the loudest voices—the ones that I have heard most of—are of those who would like a no-deal Brexit. In Willenhall and Bloxwich, we are definitely on the hard Brexit end of the spectrum. When I campaigned and voted for Brexit, I had in my mind something akin to a very hard Brexit. For example, I expected us to absolutely minimise the amount of money that we had to send to the European Union, so I find it a bit heartbreaking that that figure is close to £40 billion, and that we are paying it up front before we know what the final deal will be on our trading relationship. But all deals require an element of compromise.
Over recent days in Parliament, I have seen the idea that the possibility of a no-deal Brexit is diminishing. Clearly, that will be disappointing to the people of Willenhall and Bloxwich, but they need to understand that it is Parliament that decides. I do not think we should expect much sympathy from the general public, but I feel that an incredible responsibility rests with us. When I campaigned for Brexit, it was all very well me shouting at the TV at home and having my own opinion about how things should be. It is a bit like being a spectator on the sideline at a football match shouting that the referee or the managers should make different decisions. When we are in the game, we must be cognisant of our responsibility and of the number of different elements that we need to consider.
I am a naturally optimistic and enthusiastic person, and that is how I view the future. Now, here is a peculiar thing. We talk about the financial forecasts and people say that Brexit might make us less well off, which would be a terrible thing. Imagine, Mr Speaker—this might be difficult—that you are a plumber. You work for a good company, for which you have worked for a while, and you are, no doubt, an excellent plumber. But there are some things about the job that you are not happy with. Occasionally, your employers send you to work away from home, away from your family. They make you work weekends. They issue policies and edicts that you do not like, and things that you have to comply with because you work for them.
People say to you, “Do you know what? If you were to go out on your own, you could be a self-employed plumber. You could develop a business and employ other people.” You think about that, and you realise, “Hang on a second. That is likely to mean that I have to work harder initially while I build up a client base. I will have to do my own accounts and work longer hours. That seems counter-intuitive, given what I am trying to achieve. I am complaining about having to work away from home and having to work weekends. If I go self-employed, that is exactly what I might end up doing.” But you are a good plumber, Mr Speaker. You have great ability and great confidence in your ability to strike out and make deals yourself, work for yourself and create a business that employs other people. You can not only create a very bright future for you and your family, but develop jobs and opportunities for other people. So that is what you decide to do. You quit your job and you decide to go it alone in this brave new world.
Mr Speaker, I have faith in you and your plumbing abilities in the same way as I have incredible faith in this country. We have some of the best universities in the world. We are developing technology for things such as driverless cars. Who would not have faith in the potential for the United Kingdom, working collectively, to forge a great place in the future?
I heard the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) say to the Secretary of State that he was laughing at the idea that the EU might, in the future, look longingly at us and the deals that we had struck. I say that that is rubbish. I have confidence in this country and our ability to do great things. When people look back at what we have achieved, they will know that we did the right thing when we left the European Union.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). We both represent proud towns, but I will vote against the deal because it is my assessment that it would leave people in my constituency worse off and make their jobs less secure.
Back in June 2016, I approached the EU referendum not as my town’s local MP, but as one of Stockton’s local GPs. My experience of working in the NHS taught me the principle of informed consent, which is given based on a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications and consequences of an action. Do we really have informed consent for this Brexit deal?
Did people have a clear appreciation of how this interpretation of Brexit would affect health and social care, for example? Half of us will get cancer. Did people really give their informed consent for us to leave the European Medicines Agency and get new cancer drugs six months later than other countries, or to risk our health and social care workforce? We depend on people from EU countries coming here and sharing their skills.
Did my constituents who make car parts for Nissan give their informed consent for a Brexit deal that the North East chamber of commerce says threatens the very future of car manufacturing in the north-east? Their jobs will be on the line when we cast our votes next week. This is no small thing: will “taking back control” be any kind of compensation for not having a job?
What if someone wants to retire to the sun? Sorry—no. There will be no ongoing entitlement to go and live in Spain. Was informed consent given for that? Young people will lose their right to study and work in Europe. Did they give their informed consent for that? Did members of our armed forces who have served our Union give their informed consent for us to go back to the bad old days of conflict in Northern Ireland? Peace in Northern Ireland was hard won, and it will be under threat if we leave the EU in this way.
My constituents were told clearly that their lives would be better, that the rest of the world would be queueing up to trade with us and that the NHS would get more money. We now know that none of those things will happen. Informed consent was never obtained for this version of Brexit. That detail just was not there.
Brexit has never been about igniting the better, prouder country that my constituents want. The whole Brexit project stems from a group of people who want fundamentally to weaken our country’s safety net. They want to water down workers’ rights, pension protections and leave to care for children—those extra costs of employment that we in the EU have all agreed to share. They are a good thing that unions and workers support, but they are threatened by Brexit.
Let us be clear: this version of Brexit does not have the support of the NHS either. The Royal College of General Practitioners says:
“It is essential that the public are fully informed about the damage exiting the EU could potentially cause to the health service.”
Nurses and midwives say the same. Brexit will damage because it will lead to less money for the NHS, as our economy grows less than it would; damage because it will exacerbate the existing staffing crisis; and damage because it will delay access to new drugs. It just is not worth it.
I spend my weekends listening to people on the streets of Stockton South. Opinions are mixed and emotions strong, but my constituents have given me two clear messages. First, they agree that Brexit is not going well. They are as frustrated as I am with how the Government have handled it, and they do not want me to vote for this deal. Secondly, they want a final say—a public vote on the final deal—now the facts about Brexit are clear. If Parliament cannot agree what to do, we need to go back to the people for a people’s vote, which would be the first chance for everyone to give their truly informed consent, knowing all the facts about what Brexit means.
There is nothing to fear from more democracy. We owe it to the people we represent, before taking this giant risk to the future of our country, to check with them that we truly have their informed consent.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It has been a pleasure to listen to many of the speeches that have been made today, and I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) for his.
I will support the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement when we vote for it next week. I do not celebrate the fact that we are leaving the European Union, but I do recognise that this was the decision of the British people.
I have seen at first hand the ways in which being a member of the EU can be a force for good, enabling us in the UK to work with neighbours on common issues such as environmental matters, financial market reforms and the building of a network for scientific co-operation. What my kids loved most was the end of charges for mobile roaming. However, I have also seen an EU that has changed dramatically from the Common Market that we joined, and many people throughout our country were very uncomfortable with that.
We gave the people the vote. I campaigned for remain, but leave won. We told people that their vote would be respected, but they were also told, again and again, that a no-deal Brexit was not what would happen. They were told, “Trade will continue. The Germans want to sell us their cars. We will get a trade deal. It will be easy.”
Many of my constituents work in areas that are not covered by the World Trade Organisation. Leaving without a deal is not a good deal, and a no-deal Brexit is not what people were promised. The withdrawal agreement gives stability on citizens’ rights and gives businesses a breathing space to transition from where we are today to a new relationship. The declaration on the future framework paves the way towards the deepest trade partnership, and the deepest security partnership, into which the EU has ever entered with a third country—and yes, it does cover environmental protections and workers’ rights.
I know that Labour Members would like more detail on the long-term relationship, but time after time, EU negotiators—my contacts across the EU—have said to me, “We cannot give you that detail until you accept the withdrawal agreement.” I say to Labour Members, “You want to tear up the whole negotiation and start again, but that is really high-risk.” Come 18 April, the European Parliament will shut for its elections. Its Members will be gone. There will not be another European Commission until autumn, possibly not until Christmas or, according to some people, not until after Christmas. Meanwhile, what will happen?
Last week, Universities UK warned of the risks of no deal to our science community, and the real possibility of a brain drain. This week, the manufacturers’ organisation published its annual survey. Our businesses are diverting investment, stockpiling and reviewing supply chains.
Yesterday in the Chamber, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) warned us of the real risk that no deal could lead to a border poll in Northern Ireland and the break-up of our own United Kingdom. I was born and grew up in Northern Ireland, and my friends and contacts also say that that is a real risk. I know that Members from the Democratic Unionist party—my contacts on the other side of the Chamber—are concerned about the backstop, but I believe that we will be given more reassurance. The Irish Prime Minister said that this week, and I know that when the EU negotiators want to move, they can move fast. Let us make sure that we get that reassurance.
I know that colleagues also want more detail on the future framework—that is apparently why they will not vote for the withdrawal agreement—but they will not have it until we pass the agreement. I say again that no deal is not a good deal, and that a second referendum will not reduce uncertainty or risk. At the time of the last referendum, I campaigned in 58 Westminster constituencies. I genuinely believe that there is a significant risk that the result of a second vote could be even more anti-EU than the result two and a half years ago. Going back to square one will not reduce uncertainty or risk either.
I will vote for this deal because everything that I have seen leads me to believe that it is the best way to protect jobs and security, enable us to have a long-term relationship with our neighbours across the EU and deliver the future framework that Members on both sides of the House want so that we can care for the lives and livelihoods of our constituents.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), although I do not agree with her analysis. Next week, we are set finally to vote and make one of the most important decisions that this House has taken. It is a decision that will have enormous and lasting repercussions for our communities, our economy and our security.
Over the past few weeks, I have taken the time to reflect on this deal and what it would mean for the people of Leigh. My constituency is made up of post-industrial towns in the north, and the deal will particularly impact us because of the fragile social and economic landscape we face after the real hardship we have endured over the last few decades. With the decline of our manufacturing base and then austerity cutting to the bone, we have been left feeling isolated from the economic prosperity seen in some of our cities. We face higher than average unemployment, ballooning social issues on our streets and a social mobility crisis that threatens the life chances of our young people.
When I looked at this deal, I considered two points. First, does it respect the referendum result, in which the majority of my constituents voted to leave the EU? Also, crucially, does it deliver on the message my constituents sent and provide a blueprint for transformative and inclusive prosperity for all our communities that will help our towns to thrive and prosper once again? Looking through the deal and the political declaration, I can only conclude that, for three key reasons, this will be a bad deal for our constituency that will fail to deliver that foundation for the future.
First, the deal will not safeguard the existing jobs and businesses in the constituency. Without the assurance of a permanent customs union, our manufacturers in Leigh will be left with uncertainty and without an assurance of frictionless trade. We have seen before that when businesses and the economy take a hit, our town economies are the first to suffer. Secondly, the deal does not protect our workers’ rights. If we accept it, we risk the lowering of rights and standards by a future Tory Government. As a Labour MP, I cannot and will not vote for a deal that does not guarantee all our hard-fought rights and protections.
Thirdly, this deal does not protect our national security. Through my work in the shadow Cabinet Office team, I am well aware of the critical cyber risks facing our nation and of how much we rely on threat information from our European partners. It is simply not good enough to “aspire” to a close security relationship. Our national security needs concrete reassurances; it is not a bargaining chip.
Those are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to my serious concerns about the deal. Representing a community in desperate need of transformative investment, there is no way I could support such a gamble. If the last 10 years have taught us anything in Leigh, it is that in times of struggle our post-industrial towns are the first to be hit. I cannot risk that for our community again.
It feels we have got nowhere in the last two years. Nothing has changed, including the heated and often polarised debate. It is upsetting to witness MPs—mostly female—on the receiving end of some of the most vile abuse, be it online or via email. If there is one thing that the Government must take control of, it is the narrow arguments on Brexit. The same characters are preaching the same rhetoric, and as a country and a community we have not moved forward or even reunited.
We are left in a truly sorry state of affairs, and what pains me most is that it really did not have to be this way. Instead of negotiating in seriousness and respect, recognising the close relationship the UK wants with the EU—our closest and most important partner—the Government wasted two years fighting among themselves and botching together a deal that pleases nobody. Therefore, whichever way people voted in the referendum two years ago, one thing is miraculously unifying my constituency: we do not want the Prime Minister’s deal.
We are calling the negotiations out for the failure that they are. We reject this botched, blindfold Brexit, and we agree that we must, and certainly can, do better than this to keep our country strong and safe while helping our communities to thrive into the future.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I will start by taking some time to reflect on the issues that I heard about in 2016, and have continued to hear about since, while representing a seat that voted substantially to leave the EU. I completely understand the valid and sincere reasons why people on both sides voted how they did. Our area, once the beating heart of Britain’s industrial empire, has seen 30 years of deindustrialisation and rising unemployment, with our youth unemployment now two and a half times the national average. Many towns, including Leigh, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) just so articulately described, feel a sense of being left behind, of anger, of loss and of betrayal. Just six months before the referendum, our steelworks was closed by this Government, with 3,100 jobs lost overnight. So, when people were asked back then, “Are you happy with the status quo, or do you want things to change? Do you want to make Redcar, Teesside or Britain great again?”, of course they were going to vote out of anger and frustration. They were going to vote to take back control when they were told that the blame for our troubles lies in Brussels.
However, it was not the EU that closed our steelworks. The Government had no qualms about state aid when they stepped in to take a stake in the Port Talbot works just a few months later. It was not the EU that drove down our industry and manufacturing in favour of an economy based on the financial and services sectors. The EU did not take £6 billion out of public spending in the north in the past eight years, and it did not give us zero-hours contracts, a low-pay economy, austerity and food banks. However, many in my patch at that time simply said, “What’s to lose? It can’t get any worse.” The facts are clear now in a way that they were not in 2016, as there is plenty to lose and, as always, it is people in work in areas such as mine who stand to lose the most again.
The Government’s impact assessment showed that the economy of the north-east will be hit to the tune of 16%. That is not just a “Project Fear” figure; that means real jobs and real wage packets. That will mean homes repossessed, businesses going under, and personal tragedies like we saw in 2015 after the closure of the steelworks. There is no way in which I or anyone in this place who claims to want the best for their constituents should even be contemplating a no-deal Brexit, although we see the Prime Minister wielding it as a threat to steamroller her failed deal, which is reckless and irresponsible.
I want to take a moment to focus on a sector that remains a huge international asset in our area. The chemicals industry employs around 7,600 people in Teesside. We have the second biggest chemical cluster in Europe and the biggest in the UK, and it is heavily integrated with supply chains that span the English channel. Companies such as Huntsman process chemicals in Redcar and send them to Rotterdam for the next stage of processing. If there are any costs or delays, companies will just shift their entire processing operations to Europe, taking jobs with them. Chemicals cannot be stockpiled, and any delay is deeply damaging. However, it is not just a no-deal Brexit that would jeopardise that precious industry. The chief executive of the North East of England Process Industry Cluster told me that while the Prime Minister’s deal is better than no deal, any kind of Brexit will leave the crucial industry worse off.
The Government have already made one industrial site in my constituency a wasteland, and I am not prepared to risk a second when we are working so hard to get back on our feet. I cannot accept the Prime Minister’s deal, which is an historic and unprecedented concession of sovereign control. It leaves us in a weak negotiating position internationally, £50 billion worse off, and no clearer on our future relationship with Europe. The Chancellor himself told us that it will make Britain poorer. If it is not what people voted for, why on earth are we putting ourselves through this pain? We must now extend or revoke article 50 and go back to the people—this time with the truth and a picture of what the reality of Brexit actually is.
To those who say that they just want this over and done with, I am afraid to say that the Prime Minister’s deal will be just the beginning. We will be bogged down in negotiations for a decade, with a slow haemorrhaging of our power and wealth. To those who say another vote is a betrayal, I am afraid to say that the betrayal has already happened. The betrayal happened in 2016: when people were promised something that could not be done, and when they were promised £350 million a week for the NHS, the exact same benefits as being in the EU and the easiest deal in history. When a promise cannot be kept, everything that follows from it is a betrayal, and we need to face up to that and be honest.
To those who say there is a better deal yet to be negotiated, I am afraid to say there is no other deal. There is no jobs-first Brexit or sensible Brexit. This deal is Brexit. This is all there is and, after two and a half years, the public can see it is a disaster. They know it has gone horribly wrong and they do not like where we are headed. It is disrespectful to say that they have to be bound by a decision they made two years ago when they know that this is not what they were promised. They do not like the mess we are in and, like me, they do not recognise the Britain we are becoming.
Our Britain is not insular, fearful, jealous, selfish, pompous or cruel. It does not look backwards to a world that never was or blame other people for our failings. Our Britain is decent, kind and compassionate, but firm and fair. Our Britain is confident in its values and of its place in the world. It respects other nations and actively wants to stand alongside our friends, partners and neighbours. This Britain wants to have its say. I have absolute faith in the British people to find a way through where the Government and Parliament have failed. We must put this back in the people’s hands.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am glad to have the chance to contribute to the debate, but I will be brief, as so much has already been said.
I say from the start that I will be voting against the Government’s agreement, which is not an agreement but a short-term fix that raises huge questions about backstops and borders . The political declaration is a statement of intention. There is no deal. There are promises, politely-termed phrases and wishes for our future relationship with the European Union, but wishes will not protect workers’ rights, jobs or our living standards.
We are two years on from the decision to trigger article 50 and less than three months away from the date on which we are due to leave, and what we have are some temporary arrangements and the intention to negotiate longer-term deals. We have no certainty.
What confidence can we have that we will, in fact, reach final agreements that protect our economy, our jobs, our environment and so much more? What we have now does not address the key issues facing my constituents. My constituents did not vote for a worse life. Many of them have already been hit hard by the Government’s policy of austerity, and it is not right for me to support this deal and make things worse for them. Over the past two years this Government have failed to negotiate a firm future arrangement. How can we possibly believe that, during the implementation period, they will be able to negotiate and agree the positive arrangements that we need?
It cannot be the case that it is this deal or nothing. The Government have cynically left putting this deal to the House to the last minute in a determined effort to put the pressure on and say, “You must support this or it’s no deal.” It is the Government’s responsibility to allow this House to have real influence on the terms of the deal we need.
No deal is not an option. The Government know that leaving without a deal would not be in our interests, the interests of business or the interests of individuals. Some are calling for a clean break, but the Minister knows full well that there will be nothing clean about no deal, which would leave us trying to navigate the rugged coastline of the former agreements of our last 40-plus years in the EU.
I am glad to have been one of the Members on both sides of the House who wrote to the Prime Minister to say that no deal cannot be an option. We need a much better deal that will protect jobs, the economy, workers’ rights, the environment and the living standards of my constituents in Blaydon. This deal does not do that, and we must have the opportunity to change it, by extending article 50 if necessary.
Over the last year, thanks to my constituent Barbara McGovern, I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the House in the all-party group on phenylketonuria, or PKU, which is a metabolic condition. Those with PKU have a very restricted diet that eliminates protein. Failure to do so leads to serious neurological and developmental problems affecting all aspects of life from childhood. It is not curable—although if the Government would agree that Kuvan could be prescribed, that would help 20% of sufferers, such as my constituent Archie McGovern—and those with PKU rely on prescribed foods, many of which are imported from overseas. It is not a question of choice; they need those dietary products. These people are really concerned that post Brexit, those products will not be available in time and in the quantity required to ensure their continued availability. People with PKU, and those with many other conditions who have fears about the continuing supply of their medicines or products, are hugely concerned for the future, and we need a firm long-term agreement to ensure that those supplies continue to be available—not in the short term, but right into the future. The Government’s withdrawal agreement does not offer that permanent solution, and buying 5,000 new fridges will neither help nor reassure.
Finally, I want to talk briefly about my constituents’ views. So many have taken the opportunity to contact me, and their messages have reflected a wide range of views from “I want to remain” to “Leave now with no deal” and everything in between. Of course, many of them are asking for a people’s vote. My constituency voted leave. I respect that decision, but I do not believe that my constituents voted to be worse off, to risk environmental protections, such as those covering the Blaydon Quarry landfill site in my constituency, or to risk employment rights and, of course, jobs. It is clear that a huge majority of those who have contacted me are asking me to reject the deal that is on the table, and that is what I will be doing next Tuesday.
I could go on, but so much has been said already that I would simply repeat what many other hon. Members have said and will say in the rest of the debate. I will therefore end by reiterating that the deal is not in the best interests of my constituents and I shall vote against it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I prepared a speech, but at 5 pm I decided to scrap much of it because I wanted to express how I and many of my constituents feel. We are hurting, Mr Speaker, and I often feel that I am in a horrid dream—a nightmare that has continued from the moment when I broke down in tears at the referendum count on result night. At that moment I felt—I still feel this now—that something had been stolen from me. Viscerally, something had been taken from me, and not for others to gain from, but to be destroyed and torn up. My rights, my citizenship, my culture—all had been ripped away from me and many of my constituents.
On my way home on that miserable morning, I of course went to my local shop. I chatted to my Spanish friend there, and all that I could say was, “I’m sorry. We have failed you.” We in the remain campaign failed millions of migrants who work here, who live here and who made this place their home, and we have made them feel less welcome. But why should our failure—my failure—in the campaign harm them? Why should a failure of 2016 bind our future and mean that we fail forever? There is a principle in democracy that no Parliament may bind future Parliaments. There is a principle that no votes may bind future votes. The ’75 vote did not bind us in 2016, so why now do we say that the tyranny of history should for some reason bind us to a decision that I think was a manifest mistake?
I am against referendums generally. We live in a parliamentary democracy, and I believe that we should avoid them if we can. But once the genie is out of the bottle, the only way of getting it back in—the only way of ending this nightmare—may well end up being, at the end of this long journey, whenever it is, another people’s vote.
Many women in Ireland, after losing the referendum in 1983, immediately started building and working for another referendum to overturn that awful decision. Three referendums later, they manged to do it. There was a vote in Taiwan a few months ago to ban same-sex marriage, which passed, stripping people of their rights and their identity. Do we castigate the women of Ireland for pushing to overturn the will of the Irish? No: we celebrate the role of those women who overturned an historical wrong. Do we tell the LGBT people in Taiwan, “I’m sorry, but you just have to live with the fact that you can’t now marry”? No: we say to them, “Continue fighting and pushing on—democratically, of course—and try to overturn the absolute wrong that has been done to you.” I feel that an absolute wrong has been done to our country—to me.
I believe that there is no good Brexit for Britain. It just does not exist. No Government can produce a good Brexit. Yes, if Labour got in, we would limit and mitigate some of the damage, but even then we could not produce a good Brexit. Brexit is fundamentally linked to a xenophobic, petty nationalist view. That is not to say that those people who voted for Brexit are xenophobic or petty nationalists. When I lived in Yorkshire and we voted, unfortunately, for a British National party MEP and I had BNP councillors up the road from me, I did not say that the voters in those wards were xenophobic and racist. I said that they had made an historic and terrible mistake, and we worked for four and five years to make sure that those people were kicked out. This is a horrible and terrible mistake that was initiated by extremists in UKIP who infected the Tory party. We must now say that that mistake must be undone.
Of course, people are right to say that there are problems with the European Union. It is not perfect. Of course some of the rules on state aid, for example, are problematic. But the deal in front of us enshrines all the same state aid rules without any of the opt-outs and agreements that we could get from the Commission. This deal is far worse for the left than remaining in the European Union. That is why it must be rejected. That is also why we on the left must understand that staying in and reforming is the only feasible option for socialists.
We must also understand that there are some goods in things such as state aid rules. They stop a race to the bottom. For example, the recent European Court of Justice rulings against Ireland and Google mean that there is not some sort of Dutch auction of giving tax breaks and giveaways to multinational companies. We live in a global capitalist world and in a system where multinational companies can have more power and clout than many nation states. The only way we can counter that and do things on climate change and other big international global issues is to work together and form a democratic union. My God, the European Union is far more democratic than some things in this country—just look down the road at the other place.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). He and I disagree on answers to Brexit, but no one can doubt his passion for his community and the causes that he champions. I wish to make a brief contribution in that spirit of conciliatory debate.
I wish mainly to speak to amendment (p), which I have tabled along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). We hope that our amendment is the start of a conversation: a process to understand that there are various things wrong with the Prime Minister’s deal that mean that we are unlikely to be able to support it next Tuesday—things that will probably not be resolved by next Tuesday. But whatever the result on Tuesday, it is the start and not the end of a process.
We as a Parliament have to be honest and up front with ourselves about where we go after Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, we are not suddenly going to have a magic answer coming from the rejection of the deal. We will see people who ardently advocate leaving on WTO terms with no deal going into the same Lobby as those who ardently want a second referendum with a remain option, and to campaign for remain. I am sorry to burst their bubbles, but one half of that unlikely coalition will be very disappointed in whatever we get out of Brexit as a result of our votes in this place.
The grown-up response is to look at the cross-party group—it exists, unfortunately, mainly on the Back Benches, not the Front Benches—who want to find a way of getting through this that does the least economic damage to our country but respects and understands that those who voted leave did so not because they were duped by words on the side of a bus, or because they were not clever enough to understand the Facebook ads put towards them, but because they had deep-seated anxieties about the inequalities that exist in this country. The amendment would, I hope, start that conversation.
For me, as a Labour and Co-operative party member, and someone who has worked in the trade union movement, how we protect and enshrine workers’ rights in future is fundamental to the sort of country we want to be. A number of those rights have been derived from Europe, but we must be honest about the fact that a number of rights that Europe now holds up as a bastion of its good practice came from work done by the United Kingdom in the first place, by driving those changes through Europe and providing the bar that everybody else needs to reach.
We must protect those rights and ensure that we do not regress or water them down once we leave the European Union. Any new changes from Europe must be considered by this place, and once we have brought back sovereignty, we will choose whether to adopt them. My argument will be that we should adopt all such measures and continue in step with Europe, because in my opinion any change or improvement to environmental standards, consumer protections or workers’ rights is a good thing.
Gareth Snell
I am afraid I will not. Everyone else has had their time, so I will carry on.
It is important to find a mechanism that protects those rights, and does not kick the can down the road with another referendum, or simply add procedure and stop talking about the people. Too much of this debate—we saw this yesterday on both sides of the House with tedious and continual points of order—has been about a point of process that does not progress the debate further, or resolve the fundamental issues that are important to my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent, and those of hon. Members across the House.
At some point in this Parliament we must decide what we are for—not what we are against, or what we wish to rehash or reargue, but what we are for. I wish that the conversations I was privileged to have this week with Government and Opposition Front-Bench speakers had taken place two years ago. I wish that the Government and those on the Labour Front-Bench had got together after the general election to try to hash out some sort of plan. Such a plan would not have pleased everybody or given them what they wanted, but we need a pragmatic approach to find a way of healing the country, bringing forward the things we know are important, and delivering a Brexit referendum outcome that does not do economic damage to our country. We must ensure that people who voted leave, and those who voted remain, feel that they have a stake in the future of our country.
My frustration with this process is, and continues to be, that we appear to be moving away from a pragmatic middle and towards two extremes. Those who do not support a second referendum are labelled as hard Brexiteers who wish to sell their country down the river, and those—like many of my colleagues—who hold the principled position that we should have a second referendum are an affront to democracy. Neither of those things is true, but at some point we must face facts and understand that the country voted to leave—albeit marginally—and our job as parliamentarians is to work out how we take that forward and bring everybody together. The amendment that I have tabled is one way of achieving that unity. It by no means solves everything, and it will not remove a number of the concerns that I still have about the vote on Tuesday, but if we can use it as a starting point after that vote, I hope we will have achieved something better.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
People in my Stockton North constituency voted two to one to leave the EU. They wanted to take back control, they wanted £350 million a week more for the NHS, and many had genuine and understandable issues with freedom of movement and immigration. They voted for other reasons too—they were discontent with their lives after six years of Tory austerity, and unemployment in my constituency is still double the national average. They felt ignored in a society where the rich were getting richer, poverty was, and is, on the rise, services were being cut, and they saw limited prospects for their lives to get better. Worse still, they believed that their children faced an uncertain future.
However, people did not vote to be worse off, or to see chemical and other energy-intensive industries on Teesside devastated, with a huge impact on jobs and investment. They did not vote to weaken food standards, for their own movement to be restricted, or for hard-won rights for workers to be set aside. They did not vote for a backstop arrangement to protect Northern Ireland, leaving us to abide by EU rules without influencing them for who knows how long. Yet that is exactly what they will get with the Prime Minister’s deal.
We are on the cusp of shattering the hopes of our people. If we vote for isolation from Europe with the Prime Minister’s deal, not only will we find ourselves on the outside, but we will face an indefinite period of uncertainty. If we were to find ourselves with no deal at all, we would be cast aside from our most lucrative markets, left floundering in the world, dependent on countries across the globe for trade deals, and face the prospect of surrendering our standards for everything from food to chemical manufacturing.
I am always mindful and respectful of that voting statistic from people in my constituency, but my constituents are not daft. They know that the false promises made about NHS funding, immigration, taking back control, and so many other things, will not be delivered. They also know about the controversy over the illegality of the leave campaign.
I cannot possibly vote to satisfy everyone in my constituency, from the no-deal leavers to those demanding a second referendum and many in between, but I can vote to protect them from a bad deal and from no deal. The Government are failing to deliver a prosperous deal for our country. I favour a general election or, failing that, a second referendum, which, according to my own and national surveys, the majority of my constituents now want.
My votes are also for the north-east of England, which is a huge net exporter of goods to the EU and depends on markets there for cars, chemicals and countless other manufactured goods. It also depends on the EU for expertise, grants and tourists. Much of that is starting to go wrong, as evidenced by members of the North East England chamber of commerce, whose quarterly economic survey results recently reported less international trade activity, citing Brexit uncertainty as the key reason. The region looked set for a record year of trade, outperforming 2017 in the first and second quarters of 2018, according to the chamber of commerce, but a 10% decline in exports to the EU represented a reduction of £200 million in business, dwarfing other gains.
As some Members might know, I have a long-standing interest in UK energy, having spent a large part of my career working in the gas industry. A year on from the launch of the Government’s industrial strategy and the Helm review into the cost of energy, a new report published last month by UK Steel shows that UK producers face electricity prices twice those of their direct competitors in France, and 50% more than those of German producers. Gas prices also remain high, at more than twice those of US manufacturers and three times those of Russian producers. Carbon prices have also sustained new peaks during the autumn period. In short, the cumulative impact of the cost of decarbonising energy risks becoming unaffordable for chemical businesses in my constituency. The truth is that this deal does nothing to help that and little to allay the fears of industry in any of those areas.
Ministers are also trying to replicate all manner of regulations in British law, but companies in my region—international companies—tell me that it is not good enough. One set of EU regulations, the REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulations, are critical to my region. I have been contacted by many of the companies affected. SABIC is an international petrochemicals company and an employer in my constituency. Its chemical products and technologies are utilised in a vast number of everyday essentials, such as medicines, food, drinks, tele-communications, IT, clothing and much more. The volume of its activities, in terms of exports and imports, and the complexity of just-in-time supply chains, with multiple border crossings involved in moving raw materials to finished products, mean that any disruption will adversely affect the competitiveness of its business and the potential for future trade and investment. That is industry telling us that we cannot simply trust that things will work out and that we can go it alone. Industry employers—the people who pay the wages of millions of people—are saying that this is a problem.
By voting against this deal and against a no-deal Brexit, I am standing up for my constituents and their industry. If the Government cannot secure a deal that has the confidence of Parliament, and if Parliament cannot persuade the Government to change tack and seek a different kind of agreement, based on a strong customs union and other links to guarantee trade, investment, jobs and people’s rights, we should either have that general election or return the matter to the people in a second referendum.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker—you are saving the best til last. This is an important debate that will shape the future of our country for years to come. It was an eventful few days before the House rose for the Christmas recess, and the Prime Minister probably wishes that she was still on holiday. This Government became the first in modern times to be found in contempt of Parliament, through their refusal to publish their legal advice. The Prime Minister then announced that the Government would be pulling the parliamentary vote on the withdrawal agreement after days of impassioned debate in this House. The Conservative party then threw itself, and the country, into further political chaos with a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister’s leadership.
The Prime Minister survived and promised to listen to the House’s concerns by securing legal changes to aspects of the withdrawal agreement. She found herself in office, but not in power. Having failed to secure any meaningful changes to her withdrawal agreement, I suspect she will soon find herself out of office as well.
Let us not be kidded that this deal commands any kind of majority in this House. It can barely command the confidence of the Cabinet, with stories constantly in the press of Cabinet Ministers urging the Prime Minister to prepare for the deal to be voted down and to start to look at alternative options. I do, though, commend the Prime Minister for bringing some much needed unity to the country: her deal has managed to unite those who voted to remain and those who voted to leave in opposition to it. She has united both in hatred of the deal.
The Prime Minister tells the country that her deal is the best one on the table, yet she did not have the confidence to put it to the House as originally scheduled before the Christmas recess. If she really believes that it is the best deal, why has she chosen to attempt to scare MPs into supporting it by stepping up preparations for no deal? In Operation Brock, 150 lorries were supposed to turn up, but only 89 did. She could not even get that deal right.
Why has the Prime Minister not chosen to make the case for her deal on its own merits? She went into the 2017 general election telling the British people that no deal was better than a bad deal. She set out a series of red lines that would drive her negotiations with the EU. Well, things have certainly changed. The Prime Minister now tells the British people that a bad deal is better than no deal, and those red lines have been abandoned, just like many of the Prime Minister’s previous promises. Remember when she said that she would not call a snap election? I have to say thanks to the Prime Minister: thanks for bringing me down to Parliament to be here today as a voice for the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you.
This is certainly a bad deal. It fails to protect jobs and living standards. It risks the workers’ rights, environmental standards and consumer protections that we currently enjoy through our EU membership; it fails to properly protect the rights of EU nationals living in our country and UK citizens living in EU countries; and it risks dividing our United Kingdom, with economic hardship for working people in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, as the Government’s own forecasts highlighted.
The Prime Minister continues to play games with this House and the country because she knows that this deal will be voted down on Tuesday. It is about time that she ruled out the prospect of no deal. A no-deal Brexit would be devastating for our economy. It is time for the Government to get real and provide some certainty for the businesses, workers and communities that are concerned about the prospect of no deal.
My constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill do not just reject the Prime Minister’s deal because it fails to protect their jobs and living standards, and workers’ rights; they reject her deal because it highlights the unfairness at the heart of her Government. They are a Government who are prepared to put forward this deal or entertain the idea of no deal, despite the real and damaging consequences for some of the poorest people and communities in my constituency and others across the UK. They are a Government who have pushed 14 million people into poverty. In case the Secretary of State did not hear me, I will repeat it: a Government who have pushed 14 million people into poverty, including in my constituency, because of their failed welfare reforms, such as universal credit. They are a Government who have pursued austerity, cutting our public services and creating an economy in which workers are paid less and have greater job insecurity.
My constituents do not just need the deal to be rejected; they need a general election and a change in Government. They need a Labour Government who can negotiate a Brexit deal that unites the country and delivers a fairer Britain. More importantly, they need a Labour Government who invest in our communities, tackle low pay, end job insecurity and bring our vital services back into public ownership.
When the deal is rejected on Tuesday, I urge the Prime Minister to reflect on the fact that she has failed to deliver a Brexit deal that protects working people and their livelihoods; to recognise that she no longer commands the confidence of this House; and to recognise that she has failed to deliver for the country. She should call a general election so that the British people can elect a Labour Government who will get to work tackling the real issues of delivering a Brexit deal that works for the many and not the chosen few. And let that Labour Government stop anyone else being pushed into joining the 14 million people in poverty in this country.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
We have heard more than 50 impassioned speeches today from both sides of the House, from Perth to Don Valley, from Cheltenham to Walsall and from Tottenham to Ceredigion. I will not attempt to reference every single speech as I certainly would not do them justice, but it is clear that all Members who have spoken recognise the weight of responsibility on their shoulders—the critical decision that they must make to support their communities.
What also became clear from today’s contributions is that the Prime Minister’s deal has not found consensus in this House. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs began by stating that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Well, this deal is significantly deficient in qualifying for the presumption in this well-known quotation. This deal is simply not good. It does not work for business and industry, it does not work for working people and it does not work for our environment. In fact, as we have been sitting here today, the former head of MI6 is reported to have told the Government that it threatens national security.
The withdrawal agreement and the outline political declaration will not ensure the relationship with the European Union needed for UK businesses to operate unhindered post Brexit. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has already stated that
“no business that we have taken evidence from held the view that—from an industry perspective—the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration provide a deal as good as the one we already have with the EU”.
For instance, in the likely backstop scenario, the withdrawal agreement does not provide for a customs union as we enjoy now. As the Institute for Public Policy Research said, it provides for a “bare-bones customs union”, meaning that it does not cover areas such as services, trade or public procurement, and it certainly does not provide for frictionless trade between the UK and the EU. Specifically, it will not address non-tariff barriers such as VAT and product regulation checks, which will have a significant impact on industries such as car production and pharmaceuticals—sectors that are essential to our industrial strategy. Indeed, the Attorney General’s advice confirmed this, stating that, during the backstop,
“Great Britain will no longer be a member of the EU’s Single Market for Goods or the EU’s customs arrangements. This means that any GB goods crossing the border into the EU will be subject to third country checks by Member State authorities”.
Let me turn to the outline political declaration, which is hardly worth the paper it is written on, quite frankly. It includes phrases such as “explore the possibility”. But even if the aspirations listed there were implemented, that would not guarantee frictionless trade. In the best-case scenario, there will be barriers to trade in goods and market access for services will be reduced. That is a fact.
As the IPPR also summarised,
“there will be significant barriers to trade in services between the UK and the EU. UK firms will only have EU market access under host state rules and will lose the benefits of single market treatment…Under these plans, we should therefore expect significant new non-tariff barriers in goods, particularly in heavily regulated sectors such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals.”
Clearly, this is not a good deal for UK business as the Prime Minister keeps alleging. The fact that we are still discussing it today—two months since its inadequacy was revealed before Christmas—rather than negotiating a better deal is harming businesses in the here and now. It takes only a quick Google search to see that businesses up and down the country are already delaying investment, implementing mitigation plans and, in some cases, cutting jobs and moving operations.
Significant manufacturers such as Bombardier, Rolls-Royce and Cobham have applied to come under the jurisdiction of regulators in other EU countries, and this week Aston Martin triggered its contingency plans—at an accumulating cost, according to its chief executive. Indeed, as we have been sat here today, Honda has announced that it is doing the same and implementing its contingency plans.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will quote some of the business organisations that have cautiously welcomed the Prime Minister’s deal, but I gently say to him that they are doing so with a gun held to their head. They have been presented with a false choice between this deal or no deal by a Government who are recklessly threatening the worst-case scenario and attempting to run down the clock. In fact, it is economic sabotage.
The will of this House has been clearly expressed. There is virtually no support for no deal, and it would therefore be unthinkable for the Prime Minister to proceed down that road. Indeed, according to media reports this morning, even the Secretary of State himself agrees with this principle. If this is true, political posturing in the media is simply not good enough. Will he assure businesses today that the prospect of no deal will be taken off the table?
This unambitious deal will not only hinder the UK in terms of trade, but risk a bonfire of the regulations that ensure that high standards are maintained. Members across the House will recognise the strength of feeling that our constituents have on Brexit. However, I can assure you, Mr Speaker—we have heard from many Members on this issue today—that none of them voted for the watering down of workers’ hard-won rights after we leave the EU. Unfortunately, however, despite assurances from the Prime Minister that
“existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law”,
the TUC’s verdict is that the deal
“doesn’t guarantee jobs or rights at work into the future.”
Indeed, Thompsons Solicitors has stated that the so-called non-regression clause in the political declaration will be “ineffective” in maintaining workers’ rights, and the IPPR has stated that it is not sufficient to maintain current protections, individuals cannot even bring about proceedings and if the EU raises standards, the UK is permitted to simply fall behind.
Indeed, attempting to use all parliamentary levers to mitigate against—
Caroline Flint
Those of us who have put our names to amendment (p) realise that it is not perfect and that, like all other amendments, it is not legally binding. However, does my hon. Friend agree that whatever happens next Tuesday, if there is a willingness, we can open up discussion about how we can ensure, going forward, that we can, in law, see a way to enshrine the protection of these workers’ rights, and would she be willing to engage in such dialogue?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. I can certainly state that the sentiment behind the amendment that she and various colleagues have tabled is to bolster workers’ rights and make sure that our workers’ rights in the UK do not fall behind those in the EU.
John Redwood
Will the hon. Lady say who is threatening these rights? No party in this House wants to reduce them, and there are clear promises from the Government, so it is not an issue.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comment. However, with my tongue in my cheek, I say that I am not looking at a party that has a track record in this House on bolstering workers’ rights, so my confidence will certainly need to be increased significantly over coming weeks if I am to believe his statement.
Going back to the comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I certainly hope that the Secretary of State welcomes the sentiments outlined in the amendment that she recently tabled with colleagues, because, as he knows, a combination of the deficiencies of the withdrawal agreement and the Government’s unwillingness to listen to the concerns of MPs has forced Members across the House, such as my right hon. Friend, to gymnastically attempt to secure debate on key issues by any means possible.
My right hon. Friend is right in stating that to secure real confidence in this House, the Government do need to go much further. So far, their words fall far short of what Labour has been asking for. As the TUC has stated, they do not provide the binding long-term guarantee that working people need. It would be very helpful if the Secretary of State stated today, unequivocally, that he will guarantee that the UK will not be permitted to fall behind future improvements from the EU on workers’ rights, environmental protections, and health and safety standards. If so, in the light of the withdrawal agreement’s deficiencies, what legislation does he propose to legally reflect this position?
Simon Hoare
What the right hon. Member for Don Valley actually asked was whether the shadow Secretary of State and her Front-Bench team would take part in these cross-party discussions, not what the Secretary of State would do. It is a very simple question. The right hon. Member for Don Valley does not need me to speak on her behalf, but will the shadow Secretary of State answer that question?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Perhaps he was missing during the contributions, but numerous Members have outlined the Government’s inability to liaise with Members across the House to develop a consensus. I share the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on the need to work together across this House to deal with the many issues outlined during these debates and ensure we find a deal that provides a consensus that we can all rally around. Unfortunately, we do not have a Government who have been capable thus far of delivering that. I will move on, because I know we are short of time.
I want to talk briefly about environmental and climate protections. We know that non-regression clauses in relation to environmental protections would not be subject to the arbitration procedures set out in articles 170 to 181. Instead, standards would be enforced at the domestic level and through far weaker state-to-state procedures that are rarely effective in international treaties. The political declaration, meanwhile, contains only hortatory statements regarding climate, energy and the environment that have no legal effect. How can we trust this Government to maintain domestic standards when they have taken quite an active role, shall we say, in opposing EU progress on energy and climate change?
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
We are now tackling air quality, and that is through the EU and environmental regulations, but the Government had to be taken to court three times. If such a health and environmental crisis engulfs us again, who will protect us if we are not in the EU? It will certainly not be this Government.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes an important point. The Government’s track record has been rather deficient, to say the least. For example, in 2017 this Government lobbied for EU renewable energy and energy efficiency targets to be reduced, made non-binding or even scrapped. Is it now this Government’s position after Brexit to adopt and maintain to 2030 at least the same ambition as that in the revised renewable energy directive and energy efficiency directive? If so, how can we trust the Government to honour that position?
Of course, no deal in relation to energy and the environment would be even worse, risking chaos and catastrophe for energy, climate and the environment according to the Greener UK coalition of non-governmental organisations. As I have outlined, it is extremely irresponsible of the Government to leverage the disaster of no deal to hard-sell what is quite frankly a dismal alternative.
I will bring my comments to a close. I have outlined briefly some of the deficiencies in the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, which, in their present form, demonstrably divide the House and, indeed, Britain. They will not protect jobs and the economy. They will not protect workers’ rights, environmental or health and safety standards, and they give barely any indication of what our future relationship with the EU will look like, causing chronic uncertainty for business.
Members have a choice: do they vote for a deal that they know will make us worse off, with a huge question mark for years to come over our future relationship with the EU, or do they demand the negotiation of a better deal for Britain that will secure support in Parliament and the country? That deal can be found, but this Government have demonstrated that they are not capable of delivering it.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
I pay tribute to colleagues for an excellent debate. We have had some important contributions, and that justifies the time given to Members to state their views clearly. It is incumbent on all of us, and particularly the Government, to reflect carefully on the contributions made.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) said, Parliament is sovereign and
“to be elected to this House is one of the great privileges and responsibilities that our citizens can bestow.”
All of us who were elected in 2017 had a particular responsibility, knowing that we would vote on probably the most important decision that this House will take during our time in it, which is the terms of our departure from the European Union and our future relationship with it.
In that respect, this is not simply a matter for the Government, important though that is. It is for every Member to be able to shape and participate in our deliberations. That has been reflected in the contributions of many Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk talked about reaching out across the House. He expressed the view that there is no majority for a disorderly no-deal Brexit, but of course avoiding that requires an agreement that the House can enter into. I say to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) that to take the prospect of no deal off the table is in the hands of this House: it comes through agreeing a deal.
Sir Edward Davey
Will the Secretary of State say how he thinks the House could best be involved in reaching a decision for the country if the Prime Minister’s deal is voted down next Tuesday?
Greg Clark
I will come on to describe and respond to some of the contributions that have been made. It is very important to consider the constructive contributions that many Members have made, which can, in the days ahead before the vote, be reflected in the decision that is taken on Tuesday.
In that regard, let me start by mentioning the contribution of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). She was right to say that we should be proud of the record of this House over many centuries in establishing a defence of and a commitment to the rights of workers. That gives us cause to be proud around the world, certainly in Europe. We should be determined to continue that tradition. It is fair to reflect that this has involved Governments led by her party and Governments led by my party. The Labour party introduced the minimum wage and the Conservative party introduced the national living wage. Going back to previous generations in Parliament in different centuries, this House has always taken an active view in these matters. The amendment that she and her hon. Friends have tabled is entirely in accordance with that. Far from, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) put it, involving a ceding of those decisions to the European Union, what is attractive about the contribution that has been made is that it firmly gives to this House the opportunity to make a sovereign decision on how we want to act on the opportunities that might exist to constantly upgrade and strengthen workers’ rights. That should be something that is open to us.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made a powerful speech and a notable contribution. He said that the time for rhetoric had gone and that the time for negotiation had come. I think that that is a way in which we can proceed and his contribution was consistent with that. He was determined to avoid no deal by accident, which a majority do not want. Again, he reflected on the fact that the Trade Bill, as well as the motion before the House, will give very significant power to this Parliament to shape the ongoing relationships we have with other countries. He made references to the importance of exercising the authority of this House to ensure that all parts of the country, including those whose communities have not felt advantaged by our membership of the European Union and the conduct of the economy over decades past, are heard and recognised as they deserve to be. I will come on to say something more about his amendment in a second.
In the same spirit, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury very powerfully made the point that compromise is a virtue and something to be prized in this House. He also made the point that the mandate for compromise reflected in the narrowness of the result—even though it clearly indicated the preference of the population to leave—should be reflected in our deliberations.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) emphasised the important point about our proximity to our trading partners in Europe and reflected on the fact that if we want to engage in good and close trading the relationships, as all Members do, it makes sense to think very clearly about how we can do that with those who are geographically closest to us.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who has over many years given much thought to these matters, nevertheless set out a case that I could not agree with. I hope that I do not mischaracterise his contribution, but he asserted that we should be aiming for greater national self-sufficiency in certain of our trading relationships. He mentioned foodstuffs. I am a proud Kent MP—some of the produce of Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) will attest, is among the best in the world—but to aim for a model of national self-sufficiency while failing to recognise, as David Ricardo did all those centuries ago, the benefits to all if we concentrate and specialise is not something that we should embrace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) reflected on the economic benefits of the deal and how they would benefit his constituency. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles talked about business having a gun to its head. Not at all! Many businesses and business organisations campaigned for remain during the referendum and yet have recognised that what the Prime Minister has negotiated is a settlement that would allow them, and therefore our constituents, to continue to prosper.
John Redwood
As the Secretary of State is in love with free trade and Ricardo, would he agree with my proposal to remove all tariffs from imported components for manufactures to give our manufacturing a boost?
Greg Clark
My preference is to be part of the arrangements that we benefit from now in terms of our manufacturing industry, but as a general proposition I believe that we should be engaged in reducing tariffs. Part of our contribution to the EU has been that we have been probably the foremost advocate in Europe for the reduction of tariffs. That would be a good thing.
Sir Edward Davey
Could the Secretary of State tell the House what David Ricardo had to say about non-tariff barriers, which are the main issue in trade agreements today?
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman reflects the reality of trade today and in the time of Ricardo, which is that it is not simply about the tariffs, but about the arrangements and impediments we put in place. Again, that is one of the important parts of the agreement we have entered into.
I wanted to mention the right hon. Gentleman’s speech and from the Dispatch Box associate the whole House with his reflections on a previous Member, Paddy Ashdown, who I understand was buried in Somerset today. He would no doubt have made a fine speech in this debate, and the right hon. Gentleman was right to make reference to him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) made the point again—this was a theme of the debate—about the need for compromise and support in securing an orderly withdrawal, and he reflected on the fact that our debates and their conclusions are watched by businesses and boardrooms around the world. It is important that we live up to the reputation we have long enjoyed in this country as a dependable place in which to do business—a country where we come together and take pragmatic decisions and offer that confidence to the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) emphasised the point that when businesses do well, workers do well and pensioners do well. Workers’ rights are a theme of the debate, and we need that prosperity in order to advance our constituents’ circumstances. That is something that Mrs Thatcher was particularly alive to. My hon. Friend referred to her pitch to Japanese investors in the early 1980s, and on the day on which the Prime Minister of Japan is visiting Downing Street, it is appropriate to recall that Mrs Thatcher made the case to Nissan, Toyota and Honda that this country was skilled, innovative, flexible and able to command markets across Europe. That is as true today as it was then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) reflected on taking a pragmatic view. He campaigned very vigorously to leave the European Union—
Greg Clark
He campaigned to remain in the European Union—I was never under any misapprehension about that—but he advocated a managed, considered and orderly approach. He stated in his election address in Bromley and Chislehurst that that was the approach he would take, and I think he has delivered on that commitment during this Parliament. He has also pursued his commitment to achieve a deal that protects jobs, businesses and livelihoods.
Robert Neill
I campaigned to remain, as my right hon. Friend did. He may recall that I have referred to the importance of a managed no deal for a particular business in my constituency. He may be interested to know that since the debate in which I spoke about that, I have had an email from the managing director, who said that with a managed deal—the Prime Minister’s deal—his business is survivable. In the event of no deal, he says, it will downsize 75%, close or leave the UK. That is what is at stake.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the stakes. This is a matter that engages all Members of Parliament. We all have a responsibility to our constituents now and for the future, and every one of us will need to make an individual decision that reflects that.
I want to mention a few colleagues, and I am sorry not to be able to do justice to all the contributions that have been made; there were more than 50 of them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said—wrongly, I think—that it was too late to engage across parties and across Parliament. If I have misrepresented her, I would be delighted to hear it; I was going to admonish her gently for saying that. If we believe, as I do, that this is the most important decision that this Parliament will take, it is never too late to establish that agreement.
Emma Reynolds
The right hon. Gentleman invites me to correct the record. I did not say that it was too late; I said that it would have been better to do so earlier. As I said at the end of my speech, I really hope that if the deal is voted down on Tuesday next week, the House will come together. Quite a lot of cross-party working is going on among Back Benchers—more, I am afraid, than is happening between the Government and the Opposition.
Greg Clark
I am delighted to know that, and I am delighted that that is the hon. Lady’s view. It is important that Front Benchers do likewise, and I was a bit disappointed that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles did not take up the invitation to participate in establishing what this House can support.
I think we all admire the optimism and enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), which he referred to. This is a matter that merits such optimism and enthusiasm. His contribution to the debate, looking at how energy can be applied to finding a solution, is much to be commended.
Let me reflect on the amendments that indicate the progress that can be made. It is important to reflect that the standards of workers’ rights we have in this country not only meet but often far exceed EU standards. The right hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out that the UK offers 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay, compared with the 14 weeks required under the relevant EU directive. We in this House have given fathers and partners a statutory right to paternity leave and pay—something the EU is only starting to consider. Less than a month ago, I said at the Dispatch Box that we were laying legislation to repeal the so-called Swedish derogation from a European directive, removing what many in this country see as a loophole that allows employment agencies to undercut agency workers’ wages.
Those sentiments and that approach are reflected in amendment (p), which was tabled by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues. It is in keeping with traditions on both sides of the House, and we very much agree with its spirit and intention. Today’s contributions show what can be done in this instance and may be a totem for what is possible more broadly. We stand ready to engage in discussions on the amendment. As ever, we need to look very carefully at its implications and drafting, but I am hopeful that it will be possible for us to accept it.
The amendment rightly mentions the environment. We have no intention of lowering our ambitious environmental protections after we leave the EU. We have a duty to continue the leadership we have exercised on that in Europe and across the world. It seems to me that we also have a responsibility, given that time is running out before 29 March, to take advantage of the availability of a means of preventing a damaging no-deal Brexit. It is difficult for investors around the world to understand why the most rudimentary trade terms available between any nations on earth should govern our relationship with the rest of the European Union.
I hope that the tenor of today’s debate continues in the days ahead. I say on behalf of my colleagues that hon. Members’ contributions will be listened to seriously, taken into account and acted upon, as I indicated in response to the amendment relevant to today’s discussions, so that, in the weeks ahead, the whole House can move towards a greater sense of compromise and resolution to implement the decision that the people of the United Kingdom took. At the same time, we must ensure that we can move our economy forward and strengthen our workers’ rights and environmental protections, recognising the House’s ambition to establish this country, now and in the future, as one of the most successful and admired in the world in terms of the economy, workers’ rights and the environment. I commend the motion to the House.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Amanda Milling.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow (Order, 9 January).
Mr Speaker
We come now to the Adjournment.
I find it extraordinary, to the point of being inconceivable, that all colleagues present should not wish to remain so in order to hear the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) dilate on the subject of the Europa School, Culham, but if there are colleagues who do not feel motivated to do so—unaccountable though I find that—I trust that they will leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so that those of us who remain, including the occupant of the Chair, can listen with our customary rapt attention to the hon. Gentleman.
Europa School
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s attendance. He and I have talked about the Europa School at some length on a number of occasions, and he was, of course, responsible for the reply from the Department for Education to a petition that I presented in the Chamber not so long ago. My purpose this evening is first to highlight the importance and the unique history of the approach to languages that is demonstrated at the school, secondly to highlight the approach to providing the European baccalaureate as the final qualification for those leaving it, and thirdly to ask some questions and make some comments arising from the Department’s response to my petition.
The background to all this is, of course, the situation in which we find ourselves as a country in the context of our relationship with the European Union. I am sure we all feel the need to end the current uncertainty as soon as possible, but that is felt nowhere more keenly than at this school, where the educational future of children is at stake.
The Europa School is one of the free schools created as a result of this Government’s initiative. It is in Culham, in my constituency, but it serves a wide area, mostly in Oxfordshire and in the surrounding areas of neighbouring counties. Under the terms of the free school, parents have agreed to the provision of a certain type of education that I will describe in more detail shortly, but let me first say something about the school’s importance and its unique history.
The initial meeting to discuss the establishment of a free school in Culham took place in 2011 with the then schools Minister, my noble Friend Lord Hill. The meeting was sponsored by me and attended by representatives of parents and educationalists who wished to speak in favour of the proposal. The aim was to meet three demands. First, residents of the county had given the clearest possible support for the new school; secondly, its founders wanted to bring a new form of education into the state school system; and thirdly, we all wished to build on a secure and well-established foundation of education in the European Schools curriculum, which leads eventually to the European baccalaureate.
At its core—this is the first of my major points—was a proposal to offer something that had not been offered before in the UK state system, and, indeed, had not previously been offered in the whole of the European School system. The proposers offered a complete, thoroughgoing commitment to full bilingual education from reception class onwards. Pupils would not simply learn the other language, but would learn through that language. They would learn the linguistic rhythm of that language. This was planned to be truly deep language learning, not just the acquisition of a second language overlaid on the first.
The Europa School was set up as a free school because that is what the parents wanted, which is a key component of the free school movement. The parents wanted that particular type of education to continue through the free school. It was a way of approaching subjects in languages. The pupils were taught subjects through all those languages, so they could end up learning history in German or geography in Spanish, and so on. That is a valuable way of teaching. The parents wanted that system to continue in the school, and it is being continued.
During Education questions, I asked the Minister whether he accepted that the school was proving popular with parents of all types, including those from the UK, and that it was a good model of language teaching to follow. He replied that he shared my admiration for the Europa School, and I want to build on that today. I understand that we are anticipating an Ofsted report. I believe that everyone expects the school to have done rather well out of it, and I hope that that expectation is fulfilled. However, this approach needs to be set in the context of Brexit, and the difficulties of negotiating a Brexit that does not see the school become a casualty.
The European School, Culham—not the Europa School—had for some time been destined for closure, as the resourcing for such a school at Culham could not be justified within the European Commission’s budget for European Schools. A closure date of 2017 for the European School had already been announced. A plan was therefore advanced for the new free school to grow year by year as the European School diminished, and for the two schools to share the use of the Culham site on an agreed basis. An important aspect of this is that the free school was oversubscribed by some 30% at its opening in September 2012 and it has remained significantly oversubscribed at every subsequent admissions round since that date.
What promises and commitments has the school made? First, it sought to open multilingual education to all the residents of Oxfordshire. Secondly, it determined that the new school would have an important commitment to sciences and mathematics, particularly when the plans for the secondary school came into play. The school started with two stream languages, German and French, each joined with English, but it has recently added Spanish as a third stream language.
Critically, the freedom offered by the free schools programme to allow free schools to set their own curriculum has been essential. The founders of the Europa School adopted the European Schools’ curriculum, modified by the mandatory elements of the English national curriculum. Thus, by the time of the all-important interview at the Department for Education, there was a distinctive offering to support the bid for pre-opening status. From the deep educational theory came the view that giving a child a second language from their earliest schooling was like giving them a second life—that is, an alternative cultural world in which they could immerse themselves. From the practical world came the view that multilingualism is in no way elitist: what the taxi drivers of many European cities achieve linguistically must be within the reach of schoolchildren, given the right environment and experiences.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fascinating speech extolling the virtues of the Europa School in his constituency. I have had correspondence from constituents expressing their admiration for the school and I would like to associate myself with those comments. Does he agree with me on two brief points? First, does not the success of the Europa School show the success of the free schools programme? Secondly, does that success not also illustrate that, while Britain may be withdrawing from the political structures of the European Union, she remains an enthusiastic participant in the culture, friendships and co-operation of Europe?
John Howell
I agree with both my hon. Friend’s points. The school’s success shows the importance of the free school movement and our commitment to continuing our co-operation in Europe. I thank him for making those points.
I was particularly proud when the Europa School was specifically mentioned here in 2011 when the then Secretary of State for Education announced that the school was to open as a bilingual free school in 2012. That was not the first time that the residents of Oxfordshire had reason to be grateful for the support of the House in determining the educational provision available to their children. The quality of education at Culham through the European Schools programme had long been held in high regard. David Cameron had supported the unique educational offer provided at Culham, seeking to preserve and enhance it.
I should like to praise the system of education offered under the free schools programme. We must not forget that in this case the school was principally set up to deal with parents of mainland European origin in the area. However, the approach to teaching languages has proved immensely successful—so successful that we are now in a situation where British parents are keen for their children to enter the school and be taught in that way. I ask the Minister to acknowledge this and to confirm that he will do all he can to encourage the continuation of this form of education.
Moving on to the question of the European baccalaureate, the Europa School became an accredited European School in 2014. This means that the school has approval to continue offering the European baccalaureate and to teach the European curriculum. This accreditation was confirmed at a more recent inspection in 2018 by the European Commission. No money flows from Brussels to the school as a consequence of that status; it is simply a validation of the quality of teaching and assessment in the school.
What is so valuable about that accreditation and affiliation? The European baccalaureate uniquely obliges all candidates to take written and oral examinations in at least two languages. The examinations do not just test competence in the additional stream language; the students, as I have pointed out, actually study history and geography through those languages, and use the stream languages as the mode of learning and assessment. As a result, students have a linguistic competence in their stream language on leaving similar to the linguistic competence of university undergraduates. At the same time, all students must study mathematics and at least once science subject to an advanced level. That outcome is not delivered by the UK A-level system. This free school also requires a leaving qualification that properly recognises the numerous years of education that are involved in becoming bilingual and studying diverse school subjects in two languages.
As a responsible step in school governance, the principal and governing body of the school have explored whether the international baccalaureate could be adopted as an alternative qualification. However, there are significant limitations: examination and study of subjects through two languages is not mandatory; support for the English and German stream combination is weak; the middle years syllabus differs in significant ways; and, most of all, there is a risk of losing expertise among the teaching staff.
The school wants to be able to continue offering the European curriculum and to offer the European baccalaureate as its qualification for school leavers, and I support it most strongly in that aim. In conversation, the Minister likened the situation to the owners of a copyright. In this case, the copyright is owned by the European Commission, not by the Department for Education. I understand from the Minister that the Department is happy for the school to continue teaching the European baccalaureate, but the problem lies in the attitude of the European Commission. In this situation, I would like to ask the Minister to ensure that the Department for Education can continue to be a friend to this free school, to negotiate strongly on its behalf, and to offer a no-holds-barred assessment of how the school can continue even if the UK is not a member of the EU. I urge the Minister to explore every avenue as a matter separate from Brexit. I hope that this excellent educational establishment may continue its development in the direction that the founders of the free school have planned.
Finally, let me turn to the Department’s response to my petition. I was glad that the Government were successful in securing a provision in the withdrawal agreement that allows for Europa School’s continued accreditation as a European school until the end of August 2021. Beyond the withdrawal agreement, accreditation to deliver the European baccalaureate is available only to schools located in an EU member state. Continuing to deliver the European baccalaureate beyond that depends on a decision by European Union member states and the European Commission, through the European Schools board of governors, to change the rules on accredited schools. What are the Government doing to help the school talk to the European Schools board to try to get an agreement to include the school within its ambit after 2021? The Minister said:
“At present that seems highly unlikely.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 16P.]
This may be a lawyer’s view, but I note the term “at present” in his statement, so I ask him to set out the full position and the likely changes he expects, so as to provide the school with the degree of certainty it requires.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) pointed out, there is something special about free schools, particularly in what they can teach and the way that they can teach it. The Europa School illustrates that above all, which is why I have spent the last few minutes telling Members about it. It is a good example of how free schools work, how they can take the attitudes of parents and make them a reality, and how they can, in this case, through the European baccalaureate, continue to offer something of enormous benefit to children. I would like to see the extent to which we can provide support for the school at this time.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to him for his assiduousness in championing the Europa School not just today but over many years. He has acted to secure the best interests of parents, pupils and teachers at the school, particularly in his dealings with Ministers and with the Department for Education.
As I said in response to my hon. Friend’s question in the House on 17 December, I share his admiration for the Europa School and its very high academic standards. As continued accreditation as a European school depends on decisions by the European Schools board of governors, I recognise that the school and its community of pupils, parents and staff are facing a period of considerable change and uncertainty as the UK prepares to leave the EU. I assure the school and my hon. Friend of my ongoing support during this period, and I will work closely with him in making sure that the school receives that support.
The Europa School, as my hon. Friend said, opened as a free school in 2012. Its creation was driven by a group of parents who wished to continue to offer a European Schools-style multilingual education following the decision to close the European school in Culham in 2007. That decision was taken by the then Education Secretary in the last Labour Government as there were no longer sufficient numbers of pupils who were the children of EU officials employed at the Culham centre for fusion energy to justify its continuation as a European school.
As my hon. Friend said, the Europa School is the only accredited European school in the UK, and it teaches the European baccalaureate, which comprises the last two years of secondary education in a European school or at a school accredited by the European Schools board of governors. Pupils follow a combination of language, humanities and scientific subjects, with subjects taught through more than one language.
The Europa School has a thriving community, and it is held in high regard by parents, pupils and the local community. As of 1 January, there are 442 open free schools across the country, and the schools will provide around 250,000 places when at capacity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) said in his intervention, free schools like the Europa School are creating thousands of high-quality school places, as well as bringing innovation to the wider education system and diversity to local provision.
Ofsted’s latest information shows that 85% of all free schools with inspection reports published by the end of November 2018 are rated good or outstanding, and secondary free schools are among some of the highest performing state-funded schools in the country. I congratulate the Europa School on being one of eight European schools to have achieved a 100% pass rate for students who completed the European baccalaureate in 2018, which is a particularly impressive achievement given that 2018 was the first year of pupils at the free school taking the qualification.
Within the primary phase, I am pleased to note that the school has achieved an improvement in its key stage 2 results, with the proportion of pupils achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths increasing from 68% in 2017 to 69% in 2018. That places the school above the national average of 64%.
I note that the school had two inspections last term, with an inspection from the European Schools system in early September followed by Ofsted in December. The Ofsted report will be published shortly. The European Schools inspection will inform the European Schools board of governors decision to grant accreditation from 2019 to August 2021.
The defining feature of the European Schools curriculum is, of course, its focus on foreign languages, which this Government strongly support. I very much welcome the Europa School’s success, and boosting language teaching is central to this Government’s ambition. Having a command of foreign languages is more important than ever as we leave the European Union and forge a new relationship with our European friends and global partners. Languages provide an insight into other cultures and can open the door to travel and employment opportunities. Languages can also broaden a pupil’s horizons, helping them to navigate and succeed in new environments.
The Europa School is an accredited European school. Accreditation to deliver the European baccalaureate is available only to schools located in an EU member state, which means that, in addition to the exemption it receives from the Department for Education to deliver this qualification, the school must also receive accreditation from the European Schools board of governors, consisting of all member states of the EU and the European Commission.
The withdrawal agreement with the EU contains a provision that the UK will remain covered by the European schools convention during the implementation period after we leave the EU, but that would not have been enough to allow Europa to retain its accreditation during this period. That is why the UK negotiators sought, and were successful in securing in the withdrawal agreement, the inclusion of the regulations on accredited European schools. That allows for the continued accreditation for Europa to offer the European baccalaureate until the summer of 2021. I am very pleased that we were able to secure that transition period for Europa as part of the separation provisions in the withdrawal agreement. It will allow the school sufficient time to transition to a new curriculum.
The accreditation to 2021 is subject to renewal of accreditation by the European Schools board of governors, which will take place in April 2019, and we expect that to be granted, given the clear intention of the withdrawal agreement and the strong performance of the school. I would like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Henley that officials in the Department have been working closely with the Europa School to prepare for its future after we leave the EU and it is clearly for Europa and its board of trustees to determine the right curriculum to enable the school to continue after the implementation period ends. The implementation period will allow time for the school to complete this transition.
I am pleased to hear that the school has recently been successful in its candidacy application to be able to teach the international baccalaureate diploma from September 2020. That will allow the school to continue its focus on language teaching, and to operate with an international focus and ethos. All international baccalaureate students learn to express themselves confidently in more than one language, and this qualification will allow the school to retain its advanced language teaching and a unique offer of education to pupils. Once the accreditation process is complete, the Europa School will join 138 other international baccalaureate world schools operating in the UK.
This Government have been clear that we do not want or expect a no-deal scenario. The UK and the EU have agreed the terms of the UK’s smooth and orderly exit from the EU in the form of the withdrawal agreement and a detailed political declaration on the terms of our future relationship. Nevertheless, the Government will continue to do the responsible thing and prepare for all eventualities. I welcome the fact that the Europa School is also taking a responsible approach and preparing for the UK exiting the EU without a deal.
I am pleased to say that, with the Department for Education’s support, the European Schools board of governors agreed at its December meeting to maintain Europa’s accreditation until the end of this academic year, even in the event of a no-deal exit. That will enable the 32 pupils currently in year 13—S7, as it is referred to at the Europa School—to complete their sixth-form studies and take their exams. In addition, the school and DFE officials are working with the European Schools system to secure arrangements for the 47 year 12 pupils, who are due to sit their European baccalaureate exams in summer 2020.
The European Schools system has been clear that its rules require accredited schools to be in an EU member state, and therefore accreditation would not be available beyond 2019, but I am pleased that it is working with Europa and DFE to consider alternatives for the pupils due to sit their baccalaureate in 2020. It has been proposed that Europa could operate in partnership with another European school to deliver the baccalaureate in 2020. I thank the principal of Europa and the director of the European School in Bergen for their work to put the arrangements in place.
While we are optimistic that we will secure the necessary support for this arrangement, it is dependent on further legal consideration by the European Schools system and a vote in the board of governors’ meeting in April. The Department will, of course, continue to make a very strong case for this agreement to be adopted for 2020. I do need to make it clear, though, that the European Schools system views this partnership arrangement as a “one-off’ arrangement for the current year 12 pupils only. It is not considering a similar arrangement for 2021 in a no-deal scenario. Our current understanding is that it will not apply to those pupils currently in year 11. I recognise the difficult position in which that leaves the school and its pupils.
I very much welcome the fact that Lynn Wood, the principal of Europa School UK, and Professor Andrew Parker, the chair of the board of governors, have taken a responsible approach in being open and honest with affected pupils and their families. I understand that Ms Wood and Professor Parker have written to the parents of the 54 pupils currently in year 11 so that they can make appropriate choices about their sixth-form education and ensure that arrangements are in place in the unlikely event that we leave without a deal. I also understand that Europa is investigating whether the school could be exceptionally authorised by the International Baccalaureate Organization to start teaching the international baccalaureate as early as September, as an emergency measure, should the need arise.
I assure the Europa School UK community that the Department is committed to supporting the school and its pupils and will work closely with the school as the future position becomes clear. I will work closely with my hon. Friend, who will monitor the situation very closely himself.
My hon. Friend raised the question of the future position of the Europa School as an accredited European school beyond the provisions set out in the withdrawal agreement. I recognise that the wish of the Europa School is to continue to deliver the European curriculum and baccalaureate once the UK has left the European Union. The Government are not in a position to allow or not allow the school to offer the European baccalaureate to its students as an equivalent A-level after 2021; that is a matter solely for the board of the European Schools system.
Although the system also allows for accredited European schools operating in national education systems, the European schools regulation on accredited schools is clear: only schools in EU member states can be accredited as European schools. It does not provide for accreditation in non-EU countries. That is why it was important that we secured a transitional period for Europa through the withdrawal agreement. The school must therefore continue to prepare to transition to a new curriculum, and I am pleased that it is making good progress on that.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for this issue and appreciate the difficult position that the school finds itself in. I thank the pupils, staff and wider school community for supporting the school through these uncertain times. I am sure that the school will continue to be highly successful in offering a strong, quality education through the delivery of a broad curriculum with a focus on language teaching. Europa pupils will continue to be well placed to succeed in a global economy, and the Department for Education will continue to support the school to prepare for its future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2018
(5 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The draft order, which was laid before Parliament in December, is necessary to enable nationals of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America of age 12 or above who seek to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor under the immigration rules to be granted such leave by passing through an automated gate without having to be interviewed by an immigration officer. This change is needed to give effect to the announcements made by the Chancellor and the Home Secretary that these additional nationalities should be permitted to use our e-passport gates. The House’s agreement to the draft order will ensure that the change can be implemented in time for the summer.
The UK already leads the world in the use of e-passport gates for passenger clearance. We have more e-passport gates than any other country and allow more nationalities to use them. We intend to continue to build on their use because they provide a safe, secure means of processing low-risk passengers, allowing our highly trained Border Force officers to focus their efforts on those who seek to abuse or exploit the system and on wider border threats.
The change will have a transformational impact on the border experience for these additional nationalities, providing them with significantly faster entry to the UK, but by removing an expected 6.5 million passengers from the staffed non-EEA queue, it will also have a knock-on benefit for the clearance of other non-EEA passengers arriving at ports with e-gates. Expanding e-gate eligibility to these additional low-risk nationalities will also help us to meet the challenge of growing passenger numbers, ensuring that arriving passengers are dealt with swiftly and securely.
In 2017, there were 137 million arrivals at the UK border, an increase of 5.4% from 2016. Within those figures, the increase in non-EEA passenger arrivals was even more noticeable: more than 17%. The numbers are projected to continue to increase, with the Department for Transport predicting year-on-year growth of 2.8% to 2020 on aviation routes. That is good news for the UK, demonstrating that we continue to be a destination of choice for a wide cohort of nationalities.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister and I have discussed e-passport gates in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and we have discussed it with the Home Secretary. How much spare capacity does she believe e-passport gates currently have at the major ports of entry? Frankly, I have seen very long queues at e-passport gates, and often many of them are out of service or unusable.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that for every bank of five e-passport gates, there needs to be one Border Force officer monitoring them to authorise admission. In addition, we closely monitor the use of e-passport gates and the impact of putting additional numbers through the queues. Our modelling shows that we expect the impact on queues at the gates to be very marginal, but I am very conscious that we will have to keep the issue under review. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are increasing the number of e-passport gates; indeed, the Welsh Government have funded the reintroduction of e-passport gates at Cardiff airport, which I am sure he will welcome.
The draft order will allow us to put a potential 6.5 million additional passengers through e-passport gates, but we are conscious that 85% of passengers arriving at UK ports today are already eligible to use them. Our modelling shows that although the e-passport gates fall outside service-level agreement monitoring, it is very unusual for individual passengers to wait more than 10 minutes to get to one.
Stephen Doughty
I appreciate the Minister’s clarification, and I welcome the helpful introduction of e-passport gates at Cardiff airport. However, new e-passport gates at less used airports or ports of entry around the UK are one thing, but Heathrow, Gatwick, the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras and so on are another. Will she make clear how many additional e-passport gates will be opened at those key ports of entry?
Caroline Nokes
We continue to keep that under review with our key partners, including Heathrow Airports Ltd, Gatwick and Eurotunnel. Critically, for some of those locations, I am very alive to the challenge around physical space—I was about to say infrastructure, but it is space—and making sure that arrivals halls can accommodate more gates. We continue to keep that under review, because as far as I am concerned it is absolutely imperative that we make sure that entry into the UK is secure, swift and efficient, and that our passengers have the best experience that they can.
However, the hon. Gentleman is right to make that point, and I reassure him that I continue to meet regularly with our partners to make sure that we can have as many e-passport gates as possible open at any one time, and that they are open at the right times. A key factor is making sure that we work with partners so that we are conscious of the scheduling of flight arrivals and any delays that might build up in the airline system, so that, when people arrive in the arrivals hall, the right number of Border Force officers are present, to enable as many gates as possible to be open.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
If the Government are intent on keeping the policy under review, will they also consider extending access to e-gates to other countries, particularly Commonwealth members, who feel somewhat aggrieved at not being given low-risk status?
Caroline Nokes
The Government consider many factors when looking at which nationalities to open up the use of e-passport gates to. We have consulted very closely with our security partners on this cohort and they are also countries with which we have a long track record of good border co-operation. We will continue to look at the nationalities that can use the gates, and it is absolutely imperative that we look at the impact of the 6.5 million additional passengers. However, it is also important to reflect that we also looked at volumes, and these countries have some of the highest volumes of passengers coming into the UK.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
May I say what a lovely jacket the Minister is wearing?
I welcome what the Government are doing; it is a great step forward. However, when one comes into Gatwick, for example, with children under 12, that is where the queues tend to be. Will these provisions mean that more people will be redeployed in the summer months to ensure that people who arrive with young children after flights from various holiday destinations are swept through quicker, because enough officers will be available to swipe their passports?
Caroline Nokes
Not yet. He should be, and given his proclivity for complimenting me on my jacket, the sooner the better.
It is absolutely imperative that we use this ability to make sure that eligible passengers are put through e-passport gates. My hon. Friend quite rightly raises the point that children under 12 still cannot use e-passport gates. Part of that is about changing biometrics and facial recognition. I am conscious that biometrics work by correctly identifying somebody from not only the photograph in their passport but the chip into which the photo is embedded. Those particular facial characteristics change in children, so we have no plans to put children through e-passport gates.
The provisions will free up capacity by putting more passengers through e-passport gates. In doing so in time for the summer, which is the peak travel time for families, we are optimistic that we will see an impact on the queues that people experience. Part of our motivation for making this change today is to make sure that things change in time for the summer.
Keeping our border secure remains a top priority. I assure hon. Members that this decision has been taken only after careful consideration and in consultation with security partners across Government. Nationals from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA have been identified as suitable to use the gates based on several factors, including levels of co-operation of those countries with the UK on border matters.
Part of our long-term vision has always been to make better use of digital technology and greater automation to improve the passenger experience while maintaining security. As hon. Members will be aware, we recently published a White Paper setting out detailed plans for the UK’s future skills-based immigration system, which includes measures to strengthen border security and improve journey crossings for legitimate passengers. This expansion of e-gates needs to be seen in the context of a longer-term programme of work, in which we intend to use the UK’s exit from the EU as an opportunity to develop a new global border and immigration system that makes better use of data, biometrics, analytics and automation to improve both security and fluidity across the border.
I reassure the House that this is not a cost-cutting measure—far from it. The Government are increasing Border Force officer numbers, and their powers and responsibilities will remain unchanged. We are committed to ensuring that Border Force has the resources and workforce needed to keep the border secure.
To be clear, the order will allow nationals of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States to be granted leave to enter as visitors for up to six months when they pass through an e-gate at a UK port, including our juxtaposed controls for Eurostar services. Nationals of those countries coming to the UK for other purposes, such as work or study, will also be able to enter using the e-gates, but no change in the law is needed for those circumstances, as they will already hold the necessary leave in the form of a visa or residence permit.
We estimate that up to 6.5 million passengers from those countries will benefit from the change. That expansion in eligibility is therefore a clear signal to the rest of the world that the UK is open for business, and will allow us to control our borders in the UK’s best interests. Once approved, we expect the change to be fully implemented in time for this summer. I commend the order to the Committee.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the Minister for the meeting that we had yesterday to give us a bit more understanding of the instrument, to which the Labour party does not object. The Government have consistently failed to meet their targets for airport queue times, particularly at peak times. We support changes that will hopefully make passing through the border more efficient.
We are, however, concerned about the idea of low-risk individuals. Can the Minister account for why these countries have been chosen, and can she tell us what exactly the risk being evaluated is? The risk associated with travel and tourist stays is very different from that associated with short or long-term work visas. Does the Minister propose that we use the same metric for evaluating risk across all those different considerations?
As we know from the immigration White Paper published last year, the category “low risk” not only will affect who is allowed to use e-passport gates, but will be the basis for who is able to apply for a short-term low-skill work visa. We find that risk-based approach objectionable. First, in its own right it is discriminatory and against basic fairness to judge a person’s character on where they come from. The Government’s own data shows that, at least for students, 97% of migrants comply with the terms of their visas. Why should the actions of a very small number of people affect the opportunities for a whole nationality? Across all our institutions, the UK makes judgments about people at an individual level. We do not make collective judgments based on nationality.
Secondly, the approach is hypocritical. The Government proclaimed in their White Paper that the new system will not be
“based on where an individual comes from”,
but this risk-based approach does just that.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution with care, but surely any Government would look at patterns in different parts of the world. If a pattern could be discerned for applicants from a particular place—be it a country or a particular part of a country—that intelligence would inform subsequent policy. Surely any Government would do that.
Afzal Khan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am asking the Minister precisely what criteria she is using. We want to have that clarity, which is why I am asking these questions.
Thirdly, there is the potential that effectively 10 or 15 different visa systems could come in to replace the two systems that we have at the moment. The more we segment migrants based on where they come from, the more complex we make the system.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. We echo many of the sentiments expressed, and will not vote against the motion.
It is essentially a common-sense motion, given the delays experienced at the border. Those delays will certainly not be improved by Brexit, but to take up some of the comments made by the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton, for Cardiff South and Penarth, and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, it is important that we work to ensure the correct balance of e-gates and manned gates, ensuring that there is enough overall capacity at the border.
I know there have been lots of stories about Heathrow and delays there, but in particular I am thinking about the small airports, such as Glasgow airport in my own constituency, where there is clearly a much smaller border area, so these changes will have a much bigger relative impact for someone stuck behind the daily United States and Canada flights all coming at the same time. Has any impact assessment been made of those relative impacts versus the impacts at larger airports, such as Heathrow and Gatwick?
We share some of the misgivings about how the countries have been selected. I hope that is kept under review, and similarly for the points made about Commonwealth countries. Mr Robertson, I could go on about the Government’s overall approach, which we would call shameful, to immigration policy—the hostile environment, family reunion rules, and ending freedom of movement—but that would be slightly out of scope for today and given that we have the Second Reading of the Immigration Bill and a Bill Committee to follow, I suspect that I will have to keep my powder somewhat dry. However, you will be relieved to hear that we are not seeking to divide the Committee today and we look forward to the Immigration Bill next week.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Some colleagues might think that when they call a Westminster Hall debate, it has zero effect; I am pleased to say that the Westminster Hall debate that I secured on 12 October 2011 at 4.30 pm, which called for just this change, has finally led to it. I assumed that I had been simply ignored, but it turns out that the report of that debate has gone into the depths of Government and resulted in this very sensible policy.
I specifically welcome this measure in my role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Canada, because one of the principal issues raised with me on my visits by Canadians who come to the UK, not just for business but as visitors, is the delays they experience at the border. In fact, for many visitors, particularly from a country such as Canada, which shares so much with us—intelligence and security, our “Five Eyes” partnership and even a Head of State—it is a very unwelcome feeling to arrive in the United Kingdom and be told that they have to go through this much more strenuous system.
I was surprised to hear the shadow Minister say that we do not make exceptions on the basis of nationality at our border when that is exactly what we do. What we have at the moment is a border system that says, “If you are white, you will be treated differently than if you are non-white”, because we prioritise European Union citizens over everybody else, and that is a—[Interruption.] I will give way on that point, of course.
Neil Coyle
It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that there are only white citizens living in EU member states. That is a massive insult to the 40% black and minority ethnic community in my constituency, let alone the BME communities across all the other member states of the European Union.
Andrew Percy
If the hon. Gentleman, instead of shouting, had allowed me to continue to develop my argument, he would have heard me go on to say that, absolutely, the European Union has a diversity of population, but overall it is overwhelmingly a white club and it provides—
Andrew Percy
No, no—I will not give way—[Interruption.] I am not going to be shouted down and I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, particularly after the slur on Members yesterday who dared to raise legitimate questions in the main Chamber—[Interruption.]
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Mr Robertson. I think that is an entirely inappropriate remark for the hon. Gentleman to make, which I urge him to withdraw, and in addition I do not believe that it has anything whatsoever to do with the order that we are discussing this morning.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point of order. We need to keep this debate relevant to the point we are discussing and we also need to treat each other with respect, because no amount of shouting or inappropriate language will change what the Government are about to do.
I call Mr Percy.
Andrew Percy
Indeed, and I wish we had been treated with that respect yesterday instead of being accused of some sort of co-ordination for—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I have just made the point that we have to be relevant and what happened in the Chamber yesterday is not relevant to today’s proceedings.
Andrew Percy
The point I was making, Mr Robertson, is that we do have a system that prefers people who come from a continent that is overwhelmingly in one direction and I am not going to apologise for that; it is just a statement of fact. I am grateful that we will now have a system in place that will allow people from different countries to have easier access on the same basis, rather than maintaining that privilege of Europeans over people coming from countries that are clearly not a risk to this country, be that South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand or the United States. That is perfectly sensible, and I make no apology for criticising the current system, which maintains a European privilege over other people. It is ridiculous that we have had a situation in which people from “Five Eyes” nations, where there is clearly no security threat to this country, are made to go through a system that is not commensurate with the security risk that they pose to this country.
I have two specific questions for the Minister on matters that have been raised with me. A number of people who will benefit from the change have applied and paid for trusted traveller status to enter the United Kingdom from the United States, Canada and possibly Australia, too. Presumably, they will now be able to use the e-passport gates, as they can under the trusted traveller programme, so will they be recompensed for the fee?
Secondly, this is a two-way process, so will there be discussions to facilitate easier access for UK nationals on a reciprocal basis into the countries that will benefit from the order? Countries such as Australia and Canada have already introduced terminals that have eased the process, but many business travellers and visitors to the United States find substantial delays at the border because US citizens go down one channel—not even green card holders can use that channel now—and everybody else goes down another. If we are to offer this change, as we should to end this European privilege, can we make sure that discussions are ongoing to ensure there is a reciprocal benefit for UK citizens entering the border in the countries that will benefit from this change?
I hope this is the start of a process to ease access into the United Kingdom for low-risk travellers from a range of countries from different continents that do not enjoy the same demographic and social and economic privileges that the European Union perhaps considers itself to have.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you very much for your chairing today, Mr Robertson. I want to make specific remarks about the technicalities of the order and ask the Minister some questions. Before I do so, I have to say I am deeply disappointed by the highly divisive and inaccurate comments made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole. Such an attitude is deeply disappointing, especially when talking about whites and non-whites, not least when many European countries have incredibly diverse populations. France has a very diverse population as a result of its history in Africa and its relationship with Algeria. Let us look at the Dutch Somalis and Somalilanders, the Italian relationship with the horn of Africa, and the many different countries across Europe that have a hugely diverse population, just as we do in this country. We should not have comments about whites and non-whites when we talk about mass immigration.
It is also deeply disappointing to hear such comments from somebody who is supposed to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Canada. I lived in Canada for some years with a Canadian-British family member and I know the Canadian Government’s attitude is very different from the one that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole seems to represent.
Gavin Newlands
I have been to Canada and I share the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on the Canadian approach to immigration, which is wholly different from the British one. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole talks about Europe being a white club, but I believe Canada’s population is 86% white European, so what does that say about his earlier point about Europe being a white club when he talks about Canada?
The Chair
Order. I do want to get back on to the specific elements of this order. I ruled earlier that inappropriate language should not be used and we should treat each other with respect. We also have to stay relevant to this order.
Stephen Doughty
I too want to get back to it, Chair. I appreciate the intervention and I am sure the Minister will want to disassociate herself from the other comments made.
The Minister talked about reviewing capacity and also about potentially transferring up to 6.5 million people—I appreciate it will not be that many—into the e-passport gate system. However, I am not clear about how many additional e-passport gates will be installed at the key points of entry. It is all very well to have something under review as we look at capacity, but I have seen significant delays at e-passport gates. She talked about the arrangements on the other side of the channel in the Eurostar terminal in Gare du Nord and in Brussels. In Gare du Nord there are two sets of e-passport gates that someone has to go through and a series of other checks interspersed between. I have travelled through them on a number of occasions in recent months, and there have been breakdowns and delays. It was actually quicker to walk through the manual checking service than go through the e-passport gate. Unless there is additional capacity and extra e-passport gates, not only to cope with the additional people coming through but to deal with redundancy in the case of any breakdowns or technical malfunctions, I genuinely fear that there is potentially a serious problem. People will understandably opt for e-passport gates. I think they are a fantastic innovation, and I totally agree with what the Minister said about the technology and the digitisation of these services. We all want to see that, because it makes them more secure.
Sir John Hayes
That is a good point about capacity, and it needs to be considered in the context of this fundamental point: do we want to reduce immigration in overall terms or not? Immigration in this country has been at unsustainable levels for decades. That is not about where people come from, who they are or any or any of the things that were debated earlier. That will have an impact on capacity at airports in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. I thought that was a commonly held view across Parliament.
The Chair
Order. We are discussing passport gates, not levels of immigration. Again, I ask that we stick to the terms of this order. With that in mind, I call Mr Doughty.
Stephen Doughty
You make exactly the point that I was going to make in response to the right hon. Gentleman, Mr Robertson. This is not a debate about the net migration target. Visitors will come here, regardless of their immigration intentions. We want to encourage people to come to this country for tourism, business and other things, and we need to ensure that that is done in the safest, securest and most efficient way possible. My concerns are simply about the practicalities.
The Minister mentioned the space constraints in the terminals, and so on. That is a real concern, and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary, despite having had a number of discussions about it in the Home Affairs Committee. We have received significant evidence from airport operators and others, and there are concerns about the capacity at places such as the St Pancras terminal. Any of us who has travelled through there will know that it is a relatively small space. The minute that there starts to be a back-up of queues or a fault in the technology, there is a problem.
We only have to look at what happened in the drone incidents at Gatwick or Heathrow the other day. The potential for technology to go wrong is significant. We therefore need back-up systems, redundancy and additional capacity to cope if we are going to put new people through the system. This is a very reasonable point, and I hope the Minister will explain whether any additional e-passport gates will be introduced. If so, which terminals will they be at? What is the back-up plan for when those systems go down in order to avoid huge queues and problems?
The last point I want to make is about the sharing of data that is inputted into these systems about whether somebody is or is not allowed in. Obviously, we have close data-sharing arrangements with some of the countries that the Minister mentioned through the “Five Eyes” arrangements and other things. It is absolutely crucial that we keep ourselves safe from terrorists, criminals and others coming to our borders. One hopes that that information is properly put into the relevant databases and used.
On our ability to use the systems for European citizens in the future, there is no guarantee that we will have access to the Schengen information system or the European criminal records information system, which we have discussed multiple times. I know that the intention is there, and I have listened carefully to what the Minister and the Prime Minister have said, but we do not have a guarantee. Surely the Minister must agree that we must have the most accurate information to prevent paedophiles, terrorists, criminals, and individuals involved in organised crime from crossing our borders. Frankly, it does not matter what nationality people are or what the general risk profile is. There will always be individuals, including from the countries we have just mentioned and European countries, who will seek to evade our border and security protections and do harm in this country. Therefore, we must have the strongest relationship possible on security and information sharing.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those points. In principle, I have no objection to the order’s being used. We all agree that e-passports are a good idea, but we need that capacity and security.
Caroline Nokes
I got a bit excited earlier and thought that we were going to finish faster than we have. A range of issues have been raised, and I will try very hard to stay within the scope of the order. However, it would be remiss of me not to reflect, as a number of hon. Members have tempted me to, on the fact that we have many opportunities next week to discuss the Immigration Bill.
Caroline Nokes
Yes—and then it will go into Committee, and I expect that a lot of people will want to serve there. I shall therefore keep well away from the wider immigration issues, save for one thing. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned how we assess people at the border and whether they are assessed on the basis of their own risk or nationality and so on. The assessment is of course based on a range of factors. However, he will know and will no doubt be as disappointed as I am that there is no mention of electronic travel authorities in the Immigration Bill that is shortly to be considered by the House. That is something that we must bring forward in due course. I do not wish to give any trailer to suggest that there may be an immigration Bill part 2 in the fullness of time—perhaps long after I have finished in this role—but we do intend to introduce the electronic travel authority.
Our European neighbours already have plans in train for the European travel information and authorisation system, or ETIAS, which is the European equivalent. Those of us who have travelled to the United States—we have had some wonderful adverts for the warm welcome given by immigration in the United States—will be very familiar with the electronic system for travel authorisation, the ESTA. Our ETAs will enable both immigration control and our security services to have a very close grasp on who is coming here.
There were some interesting questions about risk. I gently point out that we already determine nationalities that do not need a visa to come here as visitors. We have visa nationals and non-visa nationals and, obviously, currently we also have free movement with the European Union member states. We already assess nationalities against that risk, to determine whether they need a visa to come here as a visitor, or not. That is of course done in close co-operation with our security partners—my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole mentioned “Five Eyes”. That fantastic relationship has been established over many years, enabling us to share information about risk with our close friends and allies.
We also have to consider volume, and that has been part of this equation. People have reflected on the length of queues that are sometimes experienced at some of our major airports. We have carefully balanced those nationalities with whom we have good border co-operation and good security relations and who will play a significant role in getting volumes out of our non-EEA queues.
In terms of capacity, there has been an enormous jump in the number of people using e-gates in the last year. Some of that is about the increasing numbers of passengers and some is about familiarity. I have spent many a happy hour at various airports in the UK that use e-passport gates, and it has been really obvious to me that experienced travellers who come in and out regularly go through the gates with barely a hiccup. Others who are less used to using them sometimes forget to take their glasses off, or put their passport in the slot and look away from the screen, but I am conscious that as people get used to using them, they use them more. That can be seen in the statistics. In the 12 months to June 2018, there was a massive 40% increase in passengers using e-passport gates against the previous 12 months. When e-passport gates became widely used in 2009, only 1 million passengers used them. In the last 12 months, nearly 52 million passengers used them. That increase is in a relatively short space of time.
Undoubtedly, we have seen increases in flows and need to keep pace with capacity, but at the moment we are confident that our e-gate capacity is sufficient for this change. As I have said, we will monitor it very closely. Over the last year, I have had meetings with all of the major airport operators to discuss capacity with them—I am sure that hon. Members can imagine the path to my door that Heathrow and Gatwick use at the peak of summer pressures. I am conscious of the challenges at regional airports, which the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth mentioned, when people find themselves behind the USA flight that has just come in. We are keeping regional airports under close surveillance, but it is worth emphasising that 64.5% of non-EEA passengers come into Heathrow, and so that is clearly where the bulk of the pressure is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole mentioned the registered traveller service. We recognise that the change means that those who have paid for registered traveller status will now have free access to our e-passport gates. We are considering the arrangements, including potential refunds, for those who may have paid for their annual membership very recently. It is an annual charge, and we have a lead-in of a few months before the necessary changes can be made to the gates to configure them to accept those passports. Hopefully, not too many refunds will be required. I hope he and those registered travellers will regard this draft order as a good thing.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister has been very generous in taking interventions. I really want some clarity on this point: will any new e-passport gates be introduced as a result of this or any other change in Government policy? I understand she says she will keep it under review and she believes there is extra capacity, but will there be any new e-passport gates?
Caroline Nokes
I gently point to the five new ones at Cardiff, which are very generously funded by the Welsh Government—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I gave them that plug. At the moment, we are keeping them under review; we are confident we can meet demand, but should that not be the case, I will continue my close work with the airport operators and Eurotunnel to make sure there is adequate capacity. As I said, there has been a 40% jump in the last year, and terminals have managed. He makes the point well, and he also made the point about reliability. The technology of the second generation e-passport gates has been much better than the first—he will recall that the first generation ones were removed from Cardiff because they were not as good. I am very conscious that the technology is always evolving. We talk of e-passport gates this year, but who knows what is coming down the track in a few years’ time? It is imperative for passengers arriving at our ports to have a 21st-century service, and the swiftest and most secure technology. With that in mind, I commend this draft order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2018.
Draft Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) regulations 2018
(5 years, 3 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 Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Since the UK’s 2016 referendum decision to leave the EU, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has undertaken a significant amount of work on the withdrawal negotiations in preparation for a range of potential negotiation outcomes. The best outcome is for the UK to leave with a good deal and we have put forward a serious and credible proposal for the future relationship. Although we remain confident of an agreement, in the meantime we must and will continue to work on preparing for a no deal.
The regulations aim to address the failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, as well as other deficiencies in the field of audit arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. They do not implement any new policy.
Although the fundamental elements of the current statutory audit legislation will remain the same after exit, the legislation still needs to be amended to ensure that it will work effectively once the UK has left the EU. That is because UK law on the regulatory oversight of the audit profession is compliant with the EU audit directive and the EU audit regulation.
The audit directive sets out the requirements on the statutory audit of most incorporated businesses, as well as a framework of standards for audit work and independence. It also sets out the responsibilities of the competent authorities for statutory audit in member states.
Meanwhile, the audit regulation sets additional requirements on the statutory audit of businesses defined as public-interest entities, which are banks, building societies, insurers and businesses with securities traded on regulated markets. The regulation forms part of retained EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will therefore continue to apply in the UK after the UK exits from the EU. Our aim is to ensure that the framework for regulatory oversight of the audit profession in the UK works effectively following our withdrawal from the EU. The statutory instrument will help to facilitate that.
Under the audit directive, powers are provided to the European Commission to grant equivalence to third countries for their audit regulatory framework and adequacy to third countries’ competent authorities for their framework on audit regulatory co-operation. The instrument transfers those powers to the Secretary of State and provides powers to set out the criteria and procedure for assessment.
In future, equivalence or adequacy status decisions will be granted by regulations. Regulations could also be used in the months immediately following the UK’s departure to set out a framework for future assessment of equivalence and adequacy by the Financial Reporting Council. Following the UK’s exit from the EU, European economic area states would be treated like other third countries and, therefore, would be granted equivalence and adequacy status by the FRC.
The instrument extends the powers granted to the UK competent authority, the Financial Reporting Council. Certain powers that have been granted to the FRC by the Secretary of State will need to apply more broadly to reflect the UK’s exit.
The instrument extends the FRC’s ability to enter into mutual recognition agreements to recognise audit qualifications to allow such agreements to be made with EEA states and Gibraltar. It also extends the FRC’s ability to register third country auditors to include the registration of EEA auditors and Gibraltarian auditors.
The instrument transfers the European Commission’s power for the adoption of international auditing standards to the FRC. As the FRC already sets UK standards in line with international standards, we anticipate no immediate change.
The instrument provides certain transitional arrangements for auditors affected and their client businesses. To ensure companies and investors remain confident in UK markets, these will apply until the end of 2020. During that period we will continue to recognise EEA audit qualifications, EEA firm registrations and approvals, EEA audit regulatory frameworks as equivalent and EEA competent authorities as adequate. These transitional arrangements will mean that there will be no cliff edge for EEA companies that list securities on the UK market. It will also allow the FRC the time to put in place the procedures necessary to determine the full equivalence of EEA states, as well as the adequacy of their competent authorities.
The Government have carried out a de minimis impact assessment of the regulations, as the overall costs to business were expected to be small. This confirmed that the impact on business would be minimal, with only a limited sector being affected by most of the substantial changes. This is because the amount of cross-border business affected by this instrument is small. The most significant effects are for EEA businesses that are listed on UK markets, whose auditors will have to register with the FRC, and for UK businesses that only trade securities in the EEA, as these auditors will be subject to less regulation than before.
Recent statements by the Republic of Ireland Government have suggested that some individual UK auditor practices across the border may be affected by the UK’s exit. However, the numbers are small and officials are already in discussion with officials in the Republic of Ireland about them. These regulations maintain access to the UK for the Republic of Ireland auditors for the transitional period. During this period, we hope to agree a mutual recognition agreement with the Republic of Ireland, which will enable continued long-term access for both sides. The Government have worked closely with business and regulatory bodies, to ensure that the instrument before you now achieves continuity wherever possible, while addressing the deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
In conclusion, these regulations aim to provide continuity for businesses operating in the audit sector wherever possible, while addressing deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. In the unlikely event that the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, the measures contained in the regulations will be crucial in ensuring that the audit regulatory framework in the UK works effectively. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I take the opportunity to wish you and all hon. Members a happy new year.
I noted from the Minister’s opening remarks that we are still very much in the pantomime season. She only had to look behind her to see the truth of that statement as in her opening comments, when she confidently articulated the likelihood of Tuesday’s vote succeeding in the House. I do not want to disabuse her, but I sincerely doubt that that will happen. Nevertheless, here we are. We will play the game and address the regulations before us in the spirit intended, with the assumption that the deal will go through on Tuesday, even though we all know that is not going to happen.
The Minister rightly said how important it is that we have a successful, sustainable and workable audit regulatory framework in the UK after leaving the European Union. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment, but her speech and the information before us raises a number of questions, which we can usefully address, regardless of how we leave the European Union and whether the vote goes through on Tuesday.
The Minister mentioned the fact that a transition period in the withdrawal agreement lasts until the end of 2020, and that this avoids a cliff edge in the changes that she described. Can I ask her about the FRC’s confidence in its ability to negotiate new mutual recognition agreements to avoid simply delaying a cliff edge until the end of 2020? What have other countries said on the same subject? My understanding, from talking to the FRC, is that negotiating mutual recognition agreements on those subjects is by no means straightforward—they are extremely complex. I must ask where her confidence comes from, because I could not find in the paperwork before us any kind of clarification or assurance that would lead her to be so confident.
The Minister mentioned the commentary of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. She also mentioned that the number of businesses affected cross-border on the island of Ireland is small. Can she tell us how small, how many businesses are affected and what their turnover is? Similarly, can she say exactly how many businesses overall will be affected by the anticipated changes, and what their turnover is? I note that again—as for similar statutory instruments that we have discussed in the last few months—we have no impact assessment. The last impact assessment we had, which was on accounting standards, suggested that 20,000 businesses were affected. That is a sizeable number, and I would be interested to know whether it is a similar sort of number in this case. Perhaps she can get that figure for us.
As with the accounting standards regulations, the responsibility for oversight moves from the European Commission to the Secretary of State, and is delivered by the Financial Reporting Council. I ask the Minister, as I did last time, what the arrangements are. There are arrangements for scrutiny of the European Commission’s activities, but what arrangements will we have to scrutinise the Secretary of State’s activities and, more importantly, how will resourcing of the FRC be changed to address the additional workload resulting from what she set out in her remarks?
We are discussing regulations for significant additional third-country operation of auditors in the UK, and the regulation of that activity. Those are very important areas. Public confidence in our auditing profession is low, with some very high-profile cases— Carillion springs readily to mind—so anything that undermines or further devalues public confidence in how audits are carried out would be extremely damaging. What assurances can she give that the FRC will be in a position to ensure that no further damage done to the reputation and quality of audit? That is extremely important. Twenty-one months is not a long time. The changes are significant and additional reassurance would be extremely welcome.
I mentioned the Irish Republic. The chartered accountants body in Ireland is calling for negotiation on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. My understanding is that a significant number of EU citizens are working in our large audit firms, which audit the FTSE 350, for example. What arrangements are being put in place to ensure that their qualifications are recognised and that they will be able to continue auditing businesses of all sizes in this country? The Irish Government want to deliver a bilateral mutual recognition agreement. As some of these issues will not just apply in the Irish Republic, is something similar being suggested by other EU countries, and have those discussions taken place with the Minister’s Department?
The regulations are in the event of the withdrawal agreement going through. However, if the agreement does not go through, what planning has been done on these subjects in the event of no deal? I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State’s comments that he is doing everything in his power to avoid no deal, which he reiterated this morning in response to the very bad news about the job losses at Jaguar Land Rover. Knowing him, I am sure that is true, but in the event of no deal, what would be the impact on the regulations before us? More importantly, what would be the impact on the auditing that is relevant to these regulations? As with so many other parts of our economy and country, no deal would have serious consequences for the audit sector. Arrangements need to be put in place—a point that has also been made in the information that is in front of us, and in the Minister’s opening remarks. To be fair, she set that out very well.
With the exception of a small number of people in this House, we can perhaps all agree that avoiding no deal is extremely important. With these regulations, we have yet another example of why it is so important that we avoid no deal, and that the proper arrangements are put in place to make sure—whether for the audit sector or for many other areas of the economy—we have an agreement that we can all get behind. As I said before, that is not going to be the agreement that the Prime Minister puts forward on Tuesday, but we are certainly going to need to agree something in the coming weeks and months. The prospect of no deal, whether for these regulations or for other areas, is utterly disastrous for us all.
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
Following on from the comments made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central, I wanted to clarify a simple point with my hon. Friend the Minister. From reading through the detail, it is my understanding that this instrument deals with what happens when we leave on 29 March, regardless of whether a withdrawal agreement has been approved by this House. I cannot see anything in here that alters the nature of the instrument one way or another, but perhaps the Minister can let me know if I have read that incorrectly.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I have just a few comments and questions about what we are doing here. To start with a slightly trivial one, the exemptions from having a statutory audit are set by EU regulation, and are based on thresholds for turnover and balance sheet size that are set in euros and then, every so often, are converted into sterling. I think the current ones we use set a turnover size of £10.2 million and a balance sheet size of £5.1 million. As we implement these regulations, would it not make sense to pick a nice round turnover and balance sheet number that can stay the same until we choose to change it, rather than having a slightly odd un-round number because of a conversion from euros?
I have two more substantive questions. First, while we obviously have some important ongoing discussions about how we reform our audit regulations and industry to make sure they are meeting the needs of the various stakeholders, our audit industry and professional services are well regarded around the world for the high quality of their work, their training, their standards and their regulation. They form quite an important export market. Can the Minister assure us that with all the stuff that we are carrying out on mutual recognition, we are aware that this is quite an important export for us? Ensuring that our UK businesses and our UK trading staff will continue to work in Europe and around the world is equally as important as ensuring that EU or EEA firms and others can work in the UK.
My second point is on what happens in the unlikely event of a no-deal exit at the end of March. There are many companies listed on our stock exchanges that are not based here and are therefore audited by non-UK audit firms. It is okay to have the powers to authorise non-UK firms to carry out these audits, but are we sure that in the event that an audit needs signing off and documents need filing in April, or pretty quickly after we leave, audit firms that are not UK-based will have been authorised so that those audited accounts are valid for listing purposes? Will we effectively just grandfather those approvals until the end of 2020, regardless of there being a deal or not, or will the FRC have to authorise a whole load of audit firms very quickly to ensure that we can continue to have firms meeting their listing requirements?
There have been various concerns about the ability of the FRC and its resourcing to meet all the very demanding roles that it already has. Is the Minister sure that it can at some speed meet these new demanding requirements that we have? Just for safety, I should declare that I am still a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. I used to work for audit firms, and I think I have a very small pension from one somewhere.
Kelly Tolhurst
I will try to answer as many of the questions that have been put by hon. Members as I can. The hon. Member for Sefton Central referred to the people behind me as thinking that I was not speaking the truth. I want to clarify my point: as a member of this Government, I am committed to getting to a position where the UK has a deal with the European Union. However, any responsible Government, as we are, would be preparing for a no-deal scenario. The regulations before us will put us in a position where UK business confidence remains. We have confidence in the UK markets and are acting responsibly to ensure that in the event of no deal, we are in a situation where the law works correctly.
I would like to go back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield. Should a deal be agreed, we might not see many changes. We are in this particular agreement, which is retained EU law, so EU laws are being introduced in the UK. It sets out how we will deal with certain audit provisions. Whether there is a deal or not, further changes will come through, because we will take decisions on how to work things and lay out further guidance on how we will assess qualifications and how we will assess the competency of authorities in the future. Fundamentally, this applies whether there is a deal or not, but obviously it focuses on a no-deal scenario.
As the hon. Member for Sefton Central will know, the transitional agreement is under this SI. For example, up to 2020, under the SI, there is confidence that we will be accepting the relevant professional qualifications and competent authorities within EEA states for the transitional period, so as not to be at a cliff edge.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the FRC is confident that it will be able to establish mutual agreements, and whether it is in a position to do so. Currently it carries out—fundamentally speaking—oversight with respect to the regulation as it stands. I am therefore confident that it will be in a position to deal with further work that is necessary in the event of no deal—and in a situation where there is a deal, although we are talking about a no-deal scenario at the moment.
I want to touch on a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley about recognition of qualifications, and authorisations. Under the SI—and the FRC is agreed—in the case of businesses whose financial years fall after 29 March there will be a requirement for auditors to register prior to the audit being signed. Effectively, there could be up to an extra year for auditors to do that, after 29 March. That is exactly so that it can be managed. There may be benefits for some auditors, because there is potential for them to say, as a selling point, they have done it ahead of time. Obviously that will not be before 29 March, and they will have until the time when they need to sign the audit to register. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some confidence.
Nigel Mills
I think I understand what the Minister is trying to say, but just to confirm it, let us say a firm had the year end of 28 February 2019 and had to submit audited financial statements to a listing authority by some such time as the end of April or early May, and we had a no-deal Brexit. The auditors could not register for that before 29 March; but would they have to register before they could submit those accounts—so that they would have to do it very quickly in early April—or would they be grandfathered, in the event of no deal?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend has outlined a situation where the company’s end of year would fall before the withdrawal date. As things stand the new registry would be only for instances where the financial year started after 29 March. It depends on where the years fall. In the case he gave, effectively, the auditors would not have to do it.
As to the number of companies affected, there are currently 291 EEA companies registered on the UK markets, and approximately 240 UK companies that have registered securities on EEA markets. The regulations affect a small number of organisations and in some cases a few other European countries. We are talking about a small number of companies. To give the Committee an idea of the scale, there are 1,000 listed companies in the UK. We have 3.8 million companies registered in the UK, 98.5% of which are small businesses, 20,000 large businesses and 35,000 medium-sized businesses, so the direct impact will affect a small number of companies and audit firms that are registered within the EEA.
On the point about the Secretary of State taking those powers regarding approval of adequacy and competence that have lain with the European Commission under the EU regulation, there would be full parliamentary scrutiny, as there is, with the Secretary of State having that power. As the hon. Member for Sefton Central knows, all Secretaries of State face full parliamentary scrutiny, and I would argue that our Secretary of State having those powers represents far more scrutiny than the European Commission under the current position. It is a positive move for the Secretary of State to have those powers, and it is right that they are held at parliamentary level rather than being delegated, at this particular time, to an arm’s-length body such as the FRC.
Regarding what the hon. Gentleman says about my confidence in the FRC and its ability, this particular regulation deals with a no-deal scenario, but as he and the Committee know, Sir John Kingman’s report into the FRC was published at the end of last year. We also have the work that has been done in the audit market regarding competitions. Whether we have a no-deal or a deal scenario, those pieces of work on what we do in this area to ensure that our markets are working effectively and that our public bodies are acting effectively will be ongoing. If there were to be any changes in the future, this SI would be taken into account. That is what Governments do. In a no-deal situation we would be in a position to change whatever we might want to in this area. I do have confidence in the FRC and in how we would manage that, and that the FRC would be in a position to deliver what is required in both a no-deal and a deal situation.
Regarding bilateral agreements, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the position with Ireland and asked whether we had had those discussions with other European states. Currently, 200 of the around 240 companies affected operate in the Irish market, so Ireland is the main EU member state that we will need to work more closely with in the future. Our officials are in discussions with our European neighbours all the time across a number of topics in this area, and more of that will go on as we head toward European Union exit date and after 29 March, whether or not we are in a deal situation and working toward a future relationship. We are committed to ensuring that we are able to deliver those agreements with our neighbours in the future.
It is paramount that, as the UK exits the EU, we maintain the integrity of the UK system for audit regulatory oversight. These regulations will help to facilitate that by ensuring that oversight of the audit profession continues to work effectively following our withdrawal from the EU. The regulations do not introduce a change in policy. As I explained, the fundamental elements of the current statutory audit legislation will remain the same after exit. The regulations before the Committee make only the amendments that are necessary to ensure that audit legislation remains operable in the UK following our withdrawal from the EU. The measures in these regulations will ensure that, and mean that the UK system for regulatory oversight will remain coherent and understandable for the businesses that rely on it. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 3 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
Crown Post Offices: Franchising
(5 years, 3 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
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered franchising of Crown Post Offices and the effect on high streets and local communities.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Just before Christmas, we learned that 74 Crown post offices faced closure or franchising to a retail branch, including my local one in Wigan. Taken alongside the 150 that have already been closed or franchised, that represents a staggering loss of 60% of the network in only five years. Crown post offices might be a small part of the overall network, but they are significant, historically accounting for between 10% and 20% of overall profits.
Many of us in the Chamber remember the anger when post offices were closed under the previous Labour Government. We should have learned then that the Post Office is important to the people of this country: it is our asset, we own it and we are proud of it. When the coalition sold off Royal Mail, two thirds of the public were strongly opposed. But here we are, and once again we have been cut out of the consultation.
The Post Office says that it has been consulting, but there is every reason to believe that those consultations are nothing more than a sham. The 2017 wave of closures was announced before Ministers had even bothered to respond to their own consultation, in which 75,000 people had urged them to think again. When the Aberdeen office was franchised, WHSmith advertised for new counter staff—at what was described as the “fantastic” level of the minimum wage—while the consultation was still going on and before any consultation with trade union representatives about terms and conditions.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does she agree that, as with our argument for postal workers, we demand better working conditions, pay and prospects in public assets that perform well? Does she agree that modern post offices can give more service to the public, but that that must not mean less for the workers in them?
Lisa Nandy
I could not agree more, and I know that my hon. Friend is a tremendous champion of that workforce in his Bury constituency. That point goes to the heart of how a publicly owned service should set the standard for how we treat our workers and our customers. I absolutely agree with him.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I wish her, the Chair and all Members a happy new year. She made the important point about ownership of the Crown network. We are the owners but, in addition, the Government are the sole shareholder, so by proxy the Government are closing down our public services. We need the opportunity to have not just a debate, but the information before anything happens.
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. On that basis, I was quite horrified at what happened last month when I went to my Crown post office to talk to the staff. I went with a representative of the Communication Workers Union, who had notified management in advance, but an area manager was then sent all the way to Wigan to block me at the door. We were chucked out of the building, but for some time I stood outside in the street in the freezing cold to talk to staff about their concerns and fears. A number of counter staff who had initially been keen to talk emailed me later to explain that they had been put under significant pressure not to come outside.
Why is a publicly owned business trying to intimidate and silence its own staff? It was particularly telling that the area manager said that she had been sent by the press office. This is an organisation apparently more concerned about appearances than about the rights of its own workforce.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. One of the most disillusioning things for staff is that this business hawks itself around to every and any shop that might try to fit a Crown post office into it, on the basis that that is better than a properly run, properly financed Crown post office. Does she agree that that can do nothing but disillusion staff?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is the view expressed very strongly by my constituents in Wigan. Over in Oldham, Members have had a significant response to a public petition that they set up for precisely that reason.
A Citizens Advice report showed that in those post offices that have been franchised, the result is longer queues, reduced counters and a significant loss of experienced staff. No wonder disability groups and pensioners groups have been critical of such plans.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I wish her campaign in Wigan every success, as I do the campaigns of my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) in their constituencies.
For us in Blackpool, sadly, the boat has already sailed. Our Crown post office, which was a grade II listed building, now lies empty, while my constituents have to go down stairs, which is not easily accessible to people with disabilities, to an unprepossessing place in the middle of the shopping centre. Does my hon. Friend agree that, besides the intimidation she described, the Post Office is on a hiding to nothing purely in commercial terms if it continues to outsource branches in that manner to WHSmith, which is widely regarded as one of the worst retailers on the planet?
Lisa Nandy
I agree, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) might have an issue from his constituency that is relevant to that point.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden). In Reading, we have serious accessibility issues. The existing Crown post office is to be shut. It has been there for some time, is busy and has ground floor access, which is welcome for many local disabled people. Unfortunately, the post office is now to be moved into the upstairs of the very busy WHSmith branch on Broad Street in Reading. The lift access is only by a relatively small lift to the first-floor premises to be used.
My constituents are concerned about that, and about the additional problem of the sub-post office in the village of Caversham, which has been closed due to other, unrelated matters. Local businesses rely on that local post office, as do many elderly and disabled people. I agree with both my hon. Friends about accessibility, which is paramount for disabled people, elderly people and small businesses. I urge my hon. Friend to continue her campaign and the Minister to look into the matter.
Lisa Nandy
Many Members have similar anecdotes from their constituencies—I can see that the Minister is listening, and I am grateful to her for doing so. I have learned that access to post office counters in WHSmith is a huge issue for those with mobility impairments. Some, such as the one that my hon. Friend has just mentioned, have been located on the first floor in premises that do not have an adequate-sized lift. Yet over 1 million people have their social security paid into a post office card account.
The Minister is supposed to represent the interests of the public in discussions with Post Office Ltd and UK Government Investments. Will she tell us whether she has asked colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to carry out an equality impact assessment of the consequences of franchising on disabled claimants? I have seen no evidence of such discussions or of an equality impact assessment by the DWP. What discussions has she had with her DWP colleagues, and will an equality impact assessment be placed in the House of Commons Library as a matter of urgency, and certainly before any further action is taken?
Last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) alluded to, WHSmith was voted the “worst retailer” on the high street by Which? readers, and it has been in the bottom two for eight consecutive years—it turns out that there is a lot of competition for worst retailer on the high street, so that takes some doing. Why, therefore, are the Government handing our valued public service to the worst retailer on the high street?
Significant sums of our money are being spent on, in effect, privatising the Post Office, using the worst business model available, yet apparently we do not get a say. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), the network and sales director told MPs that
“this is a commercial decision for us alone”.
Yesterday, I received formal notification of the consultation on the Crown post office in Wigan. The document that I was sent said:
“the change of management of the branch to one that is operated by a retail partner rather than by us directly is a commercial decision for Post Office Ltd and therefore we are not seeking feedback on this aspect of the change.”
That shows complete contempt for the public who own this service.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this incredibly important debate. The Minister know about this, but in my hometown of Tain in the highlands, our post office has been moved into a wee narrow newsagent where there is no room to swing a cat. That means that when a pensioner wants to talk about his or her pension or any other aspect of PO services, there is no confidentiality whatever. On 22 March, that newsagent will shut. We do not know where the new post office will be. There is a feeling of helplessness among my constituents. People in my home town want to know what will happen. I take on board the hon. Lady’s point that we, the people, do not feel we are in control.
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman’s constituents clearly have a very strong voice here.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. The Crown post office in Motherwell was closed down and there was a consultation. As we all know, the consultation consists of simply saying, “Can we have your opinion on the new place we have decided to put the post office?”, but then totally ignoring that opinion. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is yet another example of Tory privatisation of public services by default?
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely agree that that is happening, and the public can see it is happening, which accounts for the anger and the public response, particularly from older people, who the Conservative party has traditionally been very concerned to attract. It would be worth reflecting on the fact that the National Pensioners Convention has come out very strongly against the latest wave of Crown post office closures, because it can see where it is going, and it will not be in the interests of its members.
It concerned me when it became apparent at the all-party parliamentary group meeting that, should WHSmith fail, there is no plan B at all. There have been widespread media reports that WHSmith is in trouble. In fact, we have been here before. When the bizarre decision was taken some years ago to move branches of the Post Office into, of all places, Bargain Booze, which then folded, we were left in crisis. It seems there is no learning happening. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, the Post Office has no plan B for what will happen in the event of WHSmith’s collapse.
Lisa Nandy
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), as she has not yet spoken.
Jo Stevens
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am losing my post office in the centre of Cardiff, the capital city of Wales. It is our last post office in the city centre. Does she agree that the Financial Times got it absolutely right when it said:
“Once a high street without a WH Smith seemed unimaginable. Now it seems almost inevitable”?
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely agree. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East, as he said he would be brief.
Matt Rodda
I thank my hon. Friend for indulging me. I want to raise the mismanagement and the way in which the Post Office does not seem to engage with local retailers or look for suitable retail outlets to place sub-post offices. The problem we had in Caversham, not in Reading town centre, is just that. A local pharmacy shut and the post office then shut. It has taken months for Post Office officials to find new premises. Elderly and vulnerable people do not know where the post office will reopen and are very concerned. I would welcome the Minister meeting with residents to discuss this matter.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend highlights a key issue that simply has not been heard, understood or addressed by the Post Office. These postal services matter not just to customers and staff but to our towns. In recent years, many towns across the country have been hollowed out. Bank branches have closed, and as the Centre For Towns has showed, bank closures have hit towns harder than cities or rural areas. Many of the banks that have closed branches in the centre of Wigan over the last few years were at pains to tell me that the service would not be lost because customers could use the post office, but now we find that the post office is closing.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does she agree that WHSmith having been voted the worst retailer should ring alarm bells for the Government, and that the plan should be suspended on that basis?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister will hear “suspended”, “halted”, “paused” and “moratorium” over and over during this debate. It is not just about bank closures, the threat to the post office and the fact that WHSmith is in trouble. Many towns that face the loss of their Crown post office have had closures of major department stores such as Marks & Spencer, House of Fraser and Debenhams. Like the Crown post office, those are destination stores—they attract people into our town centres who then stay and shop elsewhere. There is a very real prospect that our town centres will begin to fall like dominoes. A perfect storm is hitting our high streets.
My Crown post office in Wigan has stood on its site in the centre of our town for 134 years. It has weathered a global financial crash and two world wars, yet apparently it cannot survive three years of Tory Government. One of our major concerns is about the lack of proposals for the building, which is owned by the Post Office. It is a striking building right in the centre of town. Will the Minister tell us what is envisaged for those buildings? Will we see derelict and abandoned buildings blighting our already struggling high streets?
Albert Owen
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are trying to regenerate town centres, yet they are closing down buildings. In a town in my constituency, the building has been empty for some years and is a blight on the landscape.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is a story I hear over and over from colleagues around the country. Behind those losses is a loss of spending power in our towns. Over several decades, good jobs have been lost and replaced by minimum-wage, insecure work. Young people have left and there has been a significant loss in the working-age population. The jobs that remain do not pay enough to sustain our local services. We have felt the anger from those areas in recent years, so why do the Government allow this process to continue?
WHSmith employs its staff on part-time contracts at the minimum wage, whereas post office counter staff typically earn £21,000 a year. It matters for the viability of our town centres that people are paid properly, and for the health of our nation that people are treated properly. In my view, this failed economic model was one of the direct causes of the heavy leave vote in constituencies such as mine. It has caused justifiable anger in our towns, so why is that failed economic model being employed?
Surely, if Government mean what they say about listening to those who have been left behind and about trying to reinvigorate our high streets, they must abandon this plan right now and seek an alternative. All the plan means, as the Communication Workers Union puts it, is that post offices are on
“a path of managed decline”.
For the 800 or so staff facing transfer or redundancy, I suspect that this will be the final straw. The vast majority of staff who faced franchising were not subject to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 in either of the last two rounds of transfer. Workers in Wigan tell me that it has been a tragedy to watch services run down over several years. Some of them have worked for the Post Office for decades, but this is the final straw.
The Post Office faces pressure from the loss of traditional services such as letters and from falling Government revenue, but it is by no means without assets. Last year it announced profits of £35 million. That should have been the catalyst to retain experienced and well-paid staff and expand into new areas—in France, La Banque Postale, established a decade ago, made a profit of €1 billion in 2016—but instead, it has cut staff and branches and awarded the chief executive a 7% pay rise. Behind the latest wave of closures is a story of greed, exploitation and carelessness with the social fabric and economic heart of our communities.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. Nottingham city centre post office is incredibly well used and very busy. When that transfers to WHSmith—the Post Office is not interested in what local people have to say about that—a lot of the staff will not transfer but will choose to leave. The post office will lose some of those experienced staff, who probably have a very good relationship with existing customers. On behalf of all of us who face a post office closure in our towns and cities, does she share my concern that that is a huge problem and a dereliction of the service we have come to expect?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but it does something else: it prevents the Post Office from being able to adapt, change and build new strategies for survival in the future. A lot of the staff standing on the cold street outside the Crown post office before Christmas told me that in recent years they had come to believe that what was happening was a deliberate strategy to run down our postal services, to the point that they are no longer viable or sustainable. That would be a shameful thing for the Government to preside over, without acting. Those staff, our towns and our communities deserve so much better than that. I ask the Minister today to place a moratorium on the franchising programme and to bring together stakeholders for a conversation about how to grow the business and make the Post Office fit for future challenges, rather than selling off one of our most valued public services to a failing retailer.
The Minister has consistently told us that it is not the place of Ministers to intervene, but perhaps she will take a leaf out of the book of her colleague who presented a petition to the Commons urging the then Business Secretary to instruct the Post Office to halt post office closures and listen to the people. That was back in 2008, and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was absolutely right. If the Prime Minister recognises the role of Government in protecting this publicly owned national asset, then surely so must the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Order. I can see that there are a lot of people who want to speak. I do not intend to put a time limit on speeches, but I want everyone to speak who wants to, so please show some time restraint.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for her thorough and eloquent opening speech, which set out very clearly why this is such an important subject. It means a lot to my constituents, particularly in the Middleton area, where in October last year we learned of the plan to move our busy town centre Crown post office into a branch of WHSmith. My constituents are extremely concerned about the potential loss of their post office from its current site and its proposed move into a struggling retail outlet in the town. If I was told that the branch of WHSmith was moving into Middleton post office, to increase its footfall, that would have made a lot more sense. I might have supported the move as mutually beneficial, but to do it the other way round is simply farcical.
WHSmith faces an uncertain future. Last year it announced the closure of six of its high street stores, plus the planned closure of 24 of its budget Cardmarket outlets, over the next three years. It is well known that WHSmith’s high street stores have struggled and that they are shored up by overpriced airport, railway station, motorway service and hospital outlets.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not the time of year to promote chocolate or other consumables, but would she agree that some of the prices that WHSmith charges at the outlets in railway stations and other places are scandalous in terms of the mark-ups?
Liz McInnes
My hon. Friend is right. There was a scandal last year about a particular hospital outlet that was charging eight times the high street price for toiletries, and getting away with it because it had a captive audience. Last year, a 7% rise in trading profits at WHSmith’s hospital and travel stores helped to offset a 3% fall in sales and profits at its high street stores, so we clearly have a business that is struggling. It is a huge risk to relocate vital post office services into a business that is closing stores and might lose more.
Over the past five years, the Post Office, which is entirely owned by the Government, has announced the closure of 150 flagship Crown post offices. The announcement that a further 74 Crown post offices are to be closed and franchised, including the one in my constituency, means that the Crown network will have been cut by 60% since 2013. Closing flagship branches, getting rid of experienced staff and putting counters in the back of a WHSmith is not the plan for growth or innovation that the post office network so desperately needs, and does not offer the level of service that the public should expect. At best, the relentless closures point to a lack of vision; at worst, they suggest the managed decline of a public asset.
My constituents have shared their concerns with me about the potential closure of our post office, and a local petition to save Middleton post office has so far attracted nearly 1,000 signatures. Our high streets are already struggling, and the loss of our flagship post office will be a major blow to Middleton town centre. Many constituents have made the point that it makes no sense to move the post office counter service to WHSmith 500 metres away, disconnecting the counter service from the sorting office, which will remain where it is. We are assured that public consultation on the future of Middleton post office will be happening at some point but my constituents are quite rightly concerned that this is already a done deal and that their responses will be ignored. I would like reassurance from the Minister, which I can pass on to my constituents, that she will ensure that any public consultation is meaningful and that the concerns of the general public will genuinely inform and shape any final decisions.
The chief executive of WHSmith, Stephen Clarke, has said that the franchising of post offices into his stores is attractive to the Post Office because his stores cost less to rent and run. It is wholly unacceptable that this is used as justification for backdoor privatisation of our Government-owned post offices. In the absence of a business plan for the Post Office, it would seem that saving money is the only motivation for the move. It seems odd that a party that claims to be the party of business has no clear plan for improving the performance of the post offices it runs. It is also highly significant that the so-called party of business cannot turn out a single Back Bencher for this important event.
I end by asking the Minister to put a stop to the process of privatisation by the back door and to begin a review of how the Post Office can grow its business through new products and innovation. We expect nothing less from the self-styled party of business.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.
The post office has historically been a focal point of any community. Until recently, in my own community—in my constituency—there were five post offices within walking distance. Now there is one, which is inside a general store. We still have a few post offices in Swansea, but most of them are franchised, including the Crown post office in Morriston.
Crown post offices offer a crucial service to the local community and their potential loss will always be a great concern to that community. Citizens Advice tells us that over half the population consider a local post office to be one of the most important services in the local community. Moving Crown post offices into private hands is a worrying trend; most importantly, we do not want it to lead to the number of post offices on our high streets declining further, and we certainly do not want any more job losses than have already occurred. It is becoming a real problem in Wales, where we have seen the greatest percentage drop in the number of post offices, with 25 closing between 2017 and 2018.
Current employees of the Crown post office must have their employment protected. That issue is being championed by the Communication Workers Union with its Save Our Post Office campaign. The CWU rightly makes the argument that the decision to franchise Crown post offices to WHSmith will hugely affect those who are currently employed by Crown post offices, moving them into lower quality jobs with WHSmith, with inferior wages and hours.
Jo Stevens
I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although staff moving from the post office to WHSmith, for example, will have their terms and conditions protected under TUPE, their pensions will not be protected, and so they stand to lose a significant amount from the transfer between one employment and another?
Carolyn Harris
That is of great concern to staff members I have spoken to. WHSmith, as we have heard, was recently voted the UK’s worst high street shop. Why are we transferring a cherished brand, the Post Office, into the hands of a negatively viewed private retailer? Since 2012, 484 post offices around Wales have been modernised or moved into premises such as convenience stores, newsagents and pharmacies. Citizens Advice carried out mystery shopping in 122 of those post offices across Wales and found accessibility concerns about one in five of them.
We cannot let the transformation of post offices across the UK alter the service that they offer to our communities and particularly to vulnerable consumers. Crown post offices are integral community hubs, offering valuable services to our high streets, and the decision to franchise a further 74 is a grave mistake. It is putting jobs at risk, putting services at risk, and potentially eroding the good will and spirit in our communities.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this important debate.
Crown post offices, like the postal service itself, are at the heart of our communities. Up and down the country, post offices are hubs for local people and their neighbourhoods. They bring people together, they connect people, and at a time when community institutions, from pubs to community centres to libraries, are closing at record rates, we need our post offices as never before.
I pay particular tribute to the post office staff serving my constituents in Croydon North. I had the opportunity of visiting the Post Office depot in Factory Lane just before Christmas; I repeat here, on the record, the thanks I offered the staff there for the fantastic job they do for the rest of us all year round, not only in the very busy Christmas period. It is sad in the extreme that, instead of protecting these vital and publicly owned assets, the Government are complicit in what my hon. Friend calls their managed decline. It is particularly galling for the public that they are paying more while getting less. The costs of getting rid of staff and refurbishing the franchisee’s stores are met by the public, but they all lead to a reduced service.
It is a tragedy to see our postal services being run down in this way. Fewer counter positions means more time spent queuing, especially at busy times of the year such as Christmas. The loss of post offices presents particular difficulty for older and disabled people who are less able to get around—particularly, as we heard earlier, if new facilities are situated above ground floor level—and overworked staff have less time available to offer help and advice to customers who may need it.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point about people with mobility difficulties. One of the issues that has been raised with me is that of people who have other conditions, perhaps neurodiverse conditions, who find the overload of being in a busy shopping centre particularly difficult. Does he think that has been properly recognised in the proposals to franchise into shopping centres?
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point; clearly that has not been taken into account at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan referred to an attempt to site a post office in a retail outlet called Bargain Booze. How inappropriate is that for many people—children, for instance, who might be going to a post office to use its services, but are walking through aisles of cheap, low-quality alcohol? That is entirely unacceptable.
Gordon Marsden
I endorse what my hon. Friend has just said. We had exactly the same situation in Blackpool, where a very well used sub-post office was transferred into that position. We managed to get some amelioration of the presentation of the booze, if I can put it that way, but it is not a welcoming environment for people to go into late at night to get the services of a post office branch.
Mr Reed
I agree completely with my hon. Friend’s important point.
Of course, it is not just customers who are suffering from the current franchising model. Many staff lose their jobs, only to be replaced in due time by lower paid staff. That, fundamentally, is how franchise partners deliver a service more cheaply. They cut staff numbers, they cut staff pay and they cut staff terms and conditions. In all seriousness, we are not going to protect our high streets or tackle growing levels of in-work poverty through a race to the bottom.
My final point is about the lack of a real forward vision for our post offices. Of course services have to change as society changes, but change does not only mean closure. The CWU has called for the Government and Post Office Ltd to set up a “post bank”, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan referred to earlier, along the lines of those seen working effectively in other European countries. Thornton Heath is an important district centre in my London constituency. Like many towns outside our cities, it no longer has a bank at all since Barclays closed its branch last year. Many small businesses in such areas trade in cash, and they need a bank in the locality—in the neighbourhood—to deposit the day’s takings. Not all businesses are digital and not all businesses are online. We are driving small businesses into ruin by allowing basic facilities like banking to be withdrawn. What a fantastic opportunity a post bank would be to revitalise our Post Office and our hard-pressed high streets at the same time—and what a crying shame that we lack a Government with either the ambition or the vision to seize it.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing this debate. I will be brief because she has said everything that all of us in the Chamber would echo about the problems we have with this proposal.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Conservative manifesto back in 2010, which said that it would make the post office the front office of Government services. How hollow has that manifesto promise proved? In fact, we could be here all day picking holes in what the Conservative manifesto promised and what the Government have since delivered. To put that into context, we consistently have debates in this Chamber about the dilution of our post office services locally, whether Crown post offices, franchises or the postmasters and postmistresses who run our post offices, because it is not the front office of Government at all.
In 2011, £172 million of Government services went through our post offices. That fell to £168 million in 2012 and was down to £141 million by 2015. In 2017 it was down to £114 million and it dipped below the £100 million mark in the Post Office annual accounts in 2018, at £99 million. That is not the front office of Government; it is the Government withdrawing services from the very thing they are supposed to be protecting on behalf of our constituents.
We can add to that the history of the project. The Royal Mail and post offices were split off under the Postal Services Act 2011. The Royal Mail was subsequently privatised. The Government said they would look after the post office network, but we have seen that post office network withering on the vine since the Royal Mail and post offices were split up under that piece of legislation. Indeed, if we look at the share price of Royal Mail today—it is just over £2.50—we see that the Royal Mail may be in a bit of financial trouble. It is hardly a success for the taxpayers of this country or for the Royal Mail.
Franchising is difficult not just because successful franchising operations end up in WHSmith. We have heard of the problems with that. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Consumer Futures report done in 2012, away back at the start of this process, which said how disastrous franchising into retailers such as WHSmith would be. That has proved to be correct. The Government at that time, when I was the shadow postal services Minister, said that the Consumer Futures report was built on incorrect data, but it has since proved to be absolutely correct when we look at the practice of franchising Royal Mail services.
The Morningside Crown post office in my constituency was a profitable branch at the top of Morningside Road. I can tell hon. Members how popular it was in terms of footfall, because that is where we do our street stalls in south Edinburgh. On a Saturday morning, there is no better place to be than outside the post office, with a stream of people going in and out, looking to engage with their Member of Parliament on various issues. That Crown post office came up for franchising, and the interesting thing about its franchise potential was that no other shop in the local area wished to take the franchised post office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan mentioned, when asked about its plan B if a franchisee does not come forward or if no franchisees satisfy the criteria for running a Crown post office, the Post Office does not have one; it has no idea.
I remember when we had a public meeting in Alloa with Gordon Banks, the former MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, when Crown post offices there were threatened with closure. Someone from the audience asked Post Office Ltd what would happen when either the franchisee failed or if no franchisee came forward, and the answer was that the Post Office itself would have to invest in the Crown post office. Perhaps we should invest in post offices before they are up for closure or franchising.
I have to pay tribute to Ibrahim Joulak, the sub-postmaster who runs the Bruntsfield post office in my constituency. He will take on the Crown post office by merging his small sub-postmaster’s post office and the Crown post office. However, franchised Crown post offices do not have all the services that we expect from the major Crown post offices, further diminishing our constituents’ use of the post office, which is a vicious circle for post offices that want to be self-sustaining.
Footfall is key if we want to revive our high streets. The best thing to drive footfall is services that people wish to use, and my constituency postbag certainly shows me that people wish to use local post offices. That drives the local café and the local newsagent, and people moving around our local communities drives the viability of public transport services. We need these linchpins in our local communities.
The most interesting and ironic thing I have seen on the franchising arrangements in my area is that four major high street banks have also closed their branches, and the letter they send to account holders says, “Don’t worry, you can use your local post office.” Well, they can do so only if their local post office exists. It is the very same problem with the free bus pass in many parts of Scotland. Of course pensioners can travel anywhere they like in Scotland with a concessionary travelcard, but they have to be able to get on a bus.
Jamie Stone
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s commitment. As high street banks continue to close branches, could we not turn the whole argument on its head, keep Crown post offices open and offer the banks a one-stop shop in these wonderful old premises that have been there for hundreds of years, thereby giving an additional service to post office customers?
Ian Murray
That is a great intervention. I keep asking the chief executives of the Royal Bank of Scotland and other high street banks why they do not co-host with post offices, bringing together two business models that are struggling because of the way that we use modern communications and modern banking. The technology must be available. If I can do all my banking on my smartphone, surely the high street banks are able to co-locate with post offices and provide that for our constituents.
Finally, the reason why staff tend not to be TUPE-ed across when there is a franchisee partner is that franchisee partners simply do not want them because they do not want the cost. The reason they do not want the cost is that they want fewer staff. The reason they want fewer staff is that they think the service cannot possibly be efficient and effective unless there are fewer experienced staff, so staff tend to take the quite generous redundancy packages from the Post Office. That experience is then lost and there is a brain drain from the service, and again there is a vicious circle of the service becoming less efficient and less able to meet the needs of the local communities.
It is right for the Minister to come here again. I hope we are not having this same debate about franchising and the closure of post offices again next year and the year after and the year after that. The Minister is new in her role, but I hope she eventually grabs the nettle of the post office network, pauses the franchising process, looks at what the Post Office can do on its profitability and then invests those profits back into the current network, so that we can all have post offices in our communities that are sustainable for the future.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this debate—we can tell from the quantity and quality of the Members attending how important it is. She gave an excellent speech, as others have said, and set out the case so well. I will probably repeat some of what she said, but because it is so important I think it is well worth saying twice, or even three or four times. Maybe then we will get the message across to the Minister, who I am sure will be in no doubt about how strongly we all feel about this.
Over the last five years, 150 Crown post offices have closed, with the closure or franchising of a further 74 Crown post offices announced in October last year. Unlike many of my colleagues, I am fortunate that no Crown post offices in my constituency are scheduled to be closed or franchised under those plans. However, the Crown post office in Sunderland is one of the busiest in the country. I can only imagine the impact on the local community if it were to be closed in the next phase of franchising. I thought I had better get in there now and stake the claim for that one to be taken off any future list.
Post offices are at the heart of local communities and are more than just somewhere for people to buy stamps or post letters. They provide vital services for many across the country, and it is therefore right and perhaps obvious that proposed closures are taking place in the face of significant local and national opposition. That is why we are all here today.
The continued privatisation and closure of Crown post offices risks leaving vulnerable customers and rural communities without access to banking and postal services. In addition, a 2016 report from Citizens Advice concluded that franchising to retailers in the past has led to inferior services and poor disabled access, which is concerning given the number of disabled welfare claimants and pensioners who access payments via Post Office card accounts. Will the Minister please tell the House whether the Government plan to carry out equality impact assessments to ensure that any post offices that are franchised are accessible to all?
Franchising is often accompanied by substandard service, as we have heard. A constituent of mine who is a former Crown post office employee wrote to me recently to voice his concerns about the impact of franchising on the employment of trained, experienced staff. In fact, Citizens Advice reported that franchising leads to a deterioration in service and fewer staff with less experience. It seems that the economics of the franchise model are based on cutting staff numbers and reducing service provision. Franchise plans put in place by the Post Office in 2014 could work only if 50% of existing Crown post office staff left the service. This expulsion of experienced, knowledgeable staff is all done at a massive cost to the taxpayer, with £13 million paid in compensation agreements to redundant postal staff between 2014 and 2015. Then, after all these experienced staff are let go, their jobs are replaced with low-paid, temporary employment.
Recently announced plans show that many Crown post offices will be franchised to WHSmith, as my hon. Friends have said. Unions have raised concerns about the retailer’s employment practices, given that its business model is based on low-wage, part-time jobs paying little above the minimum wage, whereas the usual pay for a counter position at a Crown post office is way above that. How can the Minister justify the replacement of well-paid, quality jobs with low-paid temporary positions? It is exploitative of staff and residents in areas where Crown post offices will be franchised.
I wrote to the Minister recently to voice my concerns and those of my constituents, and I thank her for her quick response. She said in reply that franchising is not a process of privatisation or closure. However, when considering the staff cuts, substandard service provision and poor profits that the postal service has faced in recent years, it appears that this publicly funded service is going through a period of managed decline.
The Minister also told me that franchising was about reducing costs for taxpayers. However, the process of franchising is paid for by public money. Millions have already been spent on compensation agreements with Crown post office staff and on installing and furnishing new, franchised branches. The Post Office will not even disclose the magnitude of some of these costs and has refused to carry out a public consultation on franchising.
Does the Minister agree that the public should at least be consulted before they are billed for substandard service and the loss of publicly owned assets? There has been a serious lack of transparency throughout the process and it is wrong that significant sums of public money are being used to finance the privatisation of the post office network. Franchising leads to poor service, poor accessibility and job cuts. The Government must justify their use of franchising and acknowledge the effect on service provision in all our local communities across the country.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for initiating this debate and speaking so powerfully in introducing it. As many hon. Members have said, she laid out comprehensively the matters that we have concerns about.
I recently met a number of postmasters in my constituency to discuss their concerns, so the issue is not just the collapse of the Crown office network—the 60% decline that we have seen in that network. Last year saw the sale of the Dennistoun Crown office in my constituency; it was franchised off. I remember going along to the consultation that the new franchisee was holding, and he seemed upbeat about the opportunity that he had to make a difference. I was looking at the plans that he had. On the face of it, it was all quite impressive—the layouts and accessibility and the opportunity.
Obviously, at that time I expressed the concerns about TUPE-ing. We have seen that the general trend is that the majority of Crown office staff will leave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, staff will have a very generous settlement scheme, but that is because the business model of the franchising is set up so that it is sustainable only if those people take the settlements. TUPE-ing people across on the same terms and conditions is not a sustainable business model for the franchise. It is almost rigged, in a way, to create that perverse incentive to leave. There is a draining out of skills and knowledge and a diluting of employment protections and the standards of employment that people would generally have working in this sector.
The postmasters came to see me because they were concerned. The same guy I was talking about came six months later, and his mood could not have been more depressed. It was just awful to see the change from his initial upbeat enthusiasm. That small business owner had been looking to make an entrepreneurial fist of it, but he felt that he had been conned in the way he had signed up to the deal.
The main concern of the postmasters was the viability of the operations because of the reduction in funding and resource. For example, postmasters now have to rent ATMs at a cost of £8,500 per annum, but they get an income of only £7,500 per annum from those machines, so that is a net loss of £1,000 to the franchisee, just from the obligation to have an ATM on-site. There are associated business rates as well.
The Government have invested £1.3 billion in the post office network. However, that money does not appear to filter down to the franchisees. Banking contracts with new franchisees have changed. Postmasters used to receive 70p per £100 for providing banking services; they now receive only 31p per £100. That creates another problematic and precarious situation for many franchise owners.
As hon. Members have said, there has been a widespread programme of commercial bank branch closures, which has hit my constituency. Near the Dennistoun Crown post office, we have seen the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Dennistoun in the last 18 months or so. Before that we saw the closure of RBS in Possilpark. My constituency has increasingly become a banking desert. It increasingly relies on post office services, which in turn are becoming increasingly precarious because all the Crown offices are being franchised. One has already been franchised, and indeed one franchise cannot be shifted because it is so unattractive to any prospective franchisee.
The situation is not working at all and is not sustainable. Potential earnings have been eroded to the point at which people believe that cash starvation will lead to the closure of many post office outlets. The view is that post offices should go back to being run as they were. My fear is that offloading the Crown office network on to franchisees stores up a time bomb. There could be a wholesale collapse in the provision of postal services across the UK within the next five years because those people literally want to drop the keys and walk away because it is costing them money to run these businesses. It is a drain on their resources. Why on earth would they be paying money to run them? I fear that the Post Office is sort of saying, “Let’s offload this. We’ll create a superficial holding pattern for a couple of years and lock the people into these contracts,” and in two years’ time things are going to drop off a cliff and we are going to see a massive collapse in the overall post office footprint across the UK. That is my real concern.
I hope the Minister takes on board and addresses my points, and that she offers to meet postmasters who have those concerns. Postmasters in my constituency believe that their ability to provide a service, which they want to provide, and employment in the constituency is being severely eroded and that retail operations within the franchises are not sufficient to allow their survival. They believe that contracts should be renegotiated to allow both the service provision and the ability to earn a reasonable living. Of course, the Communication Workers Union actively opposes the franchising of the post office network for that very reason. Employees in those branches believe that they are 39% underpaid.
The model is totally unsustainable and risks further collapse in the post office network across the UK. I hope you will take on board the direct feedback from postmasters in my constituency. Sorry, I hope the Minister takes on board that feedback—perhaps you will as well, Mr Evans, and perhaps your constituents are also affected. I hope the Minister addresses those points with urgency because this is an urgent issue affecting postal services across the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for opening the debate so powerfully. I certainly echo many of the comments that she made. If the Prime Minister did not underestimate the power of Government to intervene, I see no reason why the Minister should not intervene on behalf of all our constituents to ensure that this franchising process is halted. It is absolutely clear that it is riddled with problems. I shall reflect on the situation in my constituency in York and some of the challenges that are being placed at the door of people there because of the decision to franchise the service.
The first issue is the consultation process taking place over the Christmas period—it closed on 28 December—the busiest and most stressful time for post office staff. I pay tribute to them, but to have this situation hanging over their head over the Christmas period is nothing short of cruel. It also ignores the input that they would have wanted to have into the consultation. The issue is not just them and their jobs, but their customers, whom they care deeply about.
I want to highlight two particular issues: the impact on the local economy in York, and the location of and access to the post office. The post office has been at 22 Lendal since 1884. It has survived two world wars and still stands proud today. It is a busy and profitable Crown post office, which is a real advantage for our city centre which, like many high streets, is struggling. It is at the entrance to our city—a city that attracts 7 million people every year and a city that people will come into on a Saturday or during the week to use the facilities of the post office.
It is in a prime location for transport links, whether people are using the train or the bus to come into the city. Crucially, disabled people are able to pull up outside the post office to access the services, and for those who cycle, there is parking space for bikes outside. The post office is in the most profitable and accessible part of our city. It is boosted by having opposite to it Britain’s best pie shop—Appleton’s. People have a dual pact whereby they buy their pie and use the post office.
Lisa Nandy
As the Member of Parliament for Wigan, I am duty-bound to assure my hon. Friend that the best pies in the country are found in my constituency.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend may say that, but by all judgment, Appleton’s has won the prize for the best pie shop in the nation.
To get back to business, the reality is that York’s post office is a profitable post office that works for my constituents. It is in the prime location. If the post office could choose its location, it would still be exactly where it is. However, the post office will be moving to WHSmith in Coney Street. That is not far, but the post office will be going into an area of the city that is struggling and where shops are shutting. The number of empty retail outlets that we see as we walk around is growing year on year and month on month, which is of great concern. People will not be able to pull up in their vehicle outside the post office because it is a pedestrianised area. That means that the post office will be inaccessible, particularly for disabled people but also for older residents.
The area will also have tighter controls in future. Mail vans will not be able to pop by because of the counter-terrorism measures that our city is taking—the Post Office was not even aware of that during the consultation process. If a van were to go there, it would have to be well out of hours because of the new counter-terrorism plan. It would have a very precarious route down a dark alley, which leads down towards the river and has been deemed unsafe under health and safety inspections, let alone if someone were to be in that alley with money—they just would not go there. It is deeply concerning for staff, who would have to use that as the only means of accessing the building other than going through the shop itself.
The post office will be located at the back of WHSmith. It will not be the first business to try to succeed there. Costa Coffee had a business at the back of WHSmith and it failed. In its current location, just down the road, Costa Coffee is thriving, but at the back of WHSmith it did not work. This does not make sense for the future of the post office. Therefore, its current location is the right place for it.
Jo Stevens
I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this situation where the post office is transferred and shoved right at the back of an existing WHSmith store, which is exactly what is proposed in Cardiff Central. We know that very few people are going into WHSmith because it is an ailing retailer. Walking right to the back of an ailing retail shop will not make it easy for people to access the postal services they need.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. This has to make business sense and, where it does not, it should not proceed. I also highlight the fact that custom will be lost from retailers in the city who bank and place deposits within the post office. They do not feel safe having to walk through and then queue in a retail outlet. They have already said that they will be transferring their business away from the post office. That has to be taken on board. This does not make business sense or economic sense, nor does it make sense for our high streets or my city.
Albert Owen
As my hon. Friend knows, I know the branch she refers to very well from my student days and I use it at Christmas when I visit my daughter. It has excellent services, including an exchange bureau, which can compete with the best. Those kinds of services, which are working in purpose-built buildings, need to be maintained and enhanced. She is making an excellent case, but she makes it for the rest of the country, as well.
Rachael Maskell
It is so important that we do not sell off our family silver, which is exactly what this process will achieve, certainly with regard to my city.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of the war memorial placed in our post office, where 16 fallen men from the first world war and ten from the second world war are honoured. It is unknown today what will happen to that war memorial. I reflect on the words of Harold Wood, who today is 95. In 1942, he defended our city as part of the Home Guard. He said:
“The Luftwaffe couldn’t destroy it. It would be sad to see the Post Office do it.”
Our post office survived two world wars, so it would be a shame to close the doors, thereby ensuring that its profitability, service and access will be lost to my constituents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on bringing this debate to the House. The fact that so many people are here indicates our interest in the subject and the importance of post offices to every constituency. I am pleased to bring—as I often do in Westminster Hall—a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate. I will speak about some of the success stories that we have had recently in post offices and their strategy. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She looks very lonesome in that top corner, but from my discussions with her, I understand that she is very much interested in the views we are putting forward. I know her response will be positive and I look forward to hearing it.
I will also make some comments about the high street, because it is important to have a high street. I was just talking to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), and I said to him that if a shop goes vacant and stays vacant for a while, it almost becomes infectious. It is important to ensure that somebody comes in quickly; otherwise, it will lead to the problems we are seeing across the UK mainland.
I hail from a rural area that has seen the closure of every rural bank in the last five years. The Scottish National party has highlighted the issue of rural banks closing, which is something I have seen in my constituency in the last five years. Any change or alteration of the post office greatly concerns me. We have no banks at all in the Ards peninsula, where I live. Almost every bank that has pulled out—except Ulster bank, which has created a mobile banking service and has a customer adviser in the area once a week—has pointed to the post office and urged people to make the most of the ability to lodge money and lift money through the post office. I have to say that that strategy has been successful in the Ards peninsula for a number of reasons. First, the post offices are there—I will explain how we have been able to keep them over the years—and secondly, two credit unions have opened in Portaferry and Kircubbin, which give some banking opportunities and supplement other facilities.
The figures in the background information may be a wee bit deceptive—I say that gently and with sincerity to those who did it. Some 111 Crown post offices have closed and 1,008 agency post offices have closed. Attempts have been made to build that up by using the outreach service, which can help a bit, but does not take away from the main issue. The role of a post office is not just to do monetary things. Other hon. Members have said that post offices should be doing more where they can, and that is one of the things that I want to look at. What can they offer? Can I do my driving licence there? Can I do my passport there? Can I pay some bills there? Can I do other things? That is what we need to do. I am not sure that the outreach service makes that happen. Therefore, I suggest very gently that the outreach alternative is not really where we are. A well-run network of rural post offices is needed.
I am very aware of any changes to the services offered and I am supportive of colleagues who are losing branches to what has been described to me as privatisation by stealth. That is why I support this debate. I am here to register my support for the post offices and to support those hon. Members who are probably having more difficulties in their constituency than I have in mine because of some of the success we have had.
The briefing from the Communication Workers Union, which I am sure we all received, is clear:
“The Post Office Ltd uses public money to finance the closure and franchising programme.
Everything from compromise agreements to get rid of existing staff (£13 million in 2014-15 alone), to refurbishments on stores it then franchises (£4.6 million was spent on 39 branches), and installing post office counters in franchisees’ premises (the post office refuses to disclose this expenditure), are met by the public. Yet, in return, the public receive a reduced service.”
That is the concern we all share, as hon. Members have said. It continues:
“While Crown offices represent a small share of the overall network, they have historically brought in between 10-20% of the Post Office’s overall revenue”—
a significant amount that cannot be ignored—
“and so any further closures could jeopardise the future of the network.
There is no evidence of respite from the slash and burn approach either, as the Post Office Ltd announced in July that they want to attract new applicants to set up ‘New Network Locations’ in 450 postcode areas throughout the UK.”
That perhaps unsettles the present franchise and network of post offices, as well.
“This initiative will have a substantial and far-reaching implication on the future of every flagship Crown office and Crown office job, as well as impact on Postmasters in sub Post Offices across the network many of whom are already reporting they are struggling financially.”
The two independent reports to which some hon. Members referred—one by Consumer Focus from 2012 and another by Citizens Advice from 2016—concluded that the previous franchising of Crown offices to WHSmith resulted in longer queuing and service times, inferior customer service and advice, poorer disabled access and a reduced number of counter positions. Those facts tell the story. If a service is going to be provided, it should be a good service. If the service is run down and secondary, by its very nature, that leads to the further reduction of the Post Office.
Alongside that, the closure and franchise programme results in the loss of experienced staff, as hon. Members have said. The sub-post office managers in the peninsula that I represent have historically been second to none and we have been truly blessed, but part of that is that they have invested in their businesses. It is not the big firms such as WHSmith that have been offered the franchises, but the smaller shop groups. That has enabled post offices to be retained, because there is an investment, but there also has to be a wage for the sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses to be able to continue running them.
Having post offices in shops and garages across the peninsula is one way that we have made it work. Someone signing on to work for another company and not as a postmaster or postmistress may not affect quality of the service, but it means the loss of what people see as a community asset. I think all hon. Members have referred to and understood the importance of the community asset that we have.
I have lived on the Ards peninsula for all but four years of my life. It is a close community that has grown, with many people coming to live and retire there. Over the years, the post office has been the cog at its core—a central point for meeting friends. It is also a central point for saying, “You know something? Mrs Jones hasn’t come in this week to collect her money or make a transaction.” The people at the post office know that and then, as they often do, they will call out to see if she is okay. There is a critical community aspect to the post office that cannot be ignored, which is neighbour looking out for neighbour, as we do in this House as representatives.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the social service as well as the postal service. There are also cash-handling services that post offices provide for small businesses. Wherever they transfer to, that service is not available.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Small businesses are another aspect that I want to mention. When the banks closed, they said, “You can do your business through the post office,” but people need to have that opportunity for lodging money and for getting cash out to pay staff wages. That is really important for small and medium-sized businesses, and that is why the intervention that the hon. Gentleman referred to is critical.
The closure and franchise programme means that the relationships that customers have with staff are lost, and it limits the Post Office’s ability to expand into the new services that customers want it to provide, which is another thing we need to make sure happens. Moving to a model with less space, fewer specialist staff and fewer experienced staff is not a model that customers want or that will bring future growth.
In the short time I have, I will set out how the post office counters have developed in conjunction with small and bigger shops. I will mention some of those places, because it is important for the evidential base—probably no one will know where they are, but hopefully the Minister will get to know them shortly, when she comes to visit my constituency sometime in April, after we get Brexit out of the way. They include Ballywalter, Ballyhalbert, Greyabbey and Kircubbin; Ards town, where Scrabo post office closed but was moved to the Ards shopping centre, which is only a couple of hundred yards away; Stratheden, where the post office was moved out to one of the larger shops; and West Winds, where the same was done. Those examples worked because the shops were big enough to absorb a post office and a counter, and to give a service, but the person who took it on had to have a wage that justified them looking after it, which is important as well.
The Minister knows the pressure on the high street well, as do all hon. Members present. The news stories in the media are always full of negativity—“This store has done well. That store hasn’t done well.” We want to make sure that post offices can play their role. The Crown post office in Newtownards in my constituency is critical to the future of the high street, and we are pleased to report that it has been retained.
Although I am thankful for businesses such as the Spar in Carrowdore, which has incorporated a post office in its shopping outlet that carries out all the post office functions, including foreign currency, and whose staff are certainly highly trained, that does not seem to be the case for all franchises on the mainland, as hon. Members have said. As an MP for a rural area, I give my wholehearted support to those wanting to preserve the skill and make-up of post offices in areas that rely on them as the only monetary exchange.
Earlier, someone said that privacy is sometimes needed for financial transactions. I want that to be recorded in Hansard. That is perhaps the one thing I would like to see more often in a post office. We live in an age where everyone overhears conversations about other people’s monetary transactions in the post office, but we do need privacy for some things.
The Post Office was not designated for privatisation and I sincerely oppose an attempt to privatise it by stealth—I put that on the record. The service it provides is truly a lifeline in rural communities and that service must be first class. For that reason, it must be retained. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that in her response, we will hear some of the reassurance we need.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing the debate and for introducing it so comprehensively. As she will see, I have been waiting for three years to say some of these things; this is a great opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) started by talking about the impact and importance of post offices in our communities. Before coming here, I was a community worker and an academic studying community work. I can testify that having such institutions on our high street as part of our community is incredibly important. Some institutions, such as libraries and post offices, have been part of our communities for generations, and different generations use them to mingle and come together. They not only form a physical presence in our community, but bring different parts of our community, of different ages, ethnicities and backgrounds, together in the same place. They are uniquely and incredibly important to the cohesion of our communities.
Since 2000, I have lived in the Brunswick Town area of the Hove constituency that I represent. That town is characterised by having lots of the regency houses for which Hove is known. It also had a Crown post office that had been there for many generations. It was a well loved and heavily used post office. I was elected in 2015. Two months after being elected, I was contacted by the Post Office, which said that it was opening a consultation with the potential to close the branch. I immediately met Post Office representatives in my office in Parliament, because if the Post Office was going to have a consultation, I wanted to engage in it in an open-hearted, engaged and positive way. I wanted to make sure that it got all the information it needed to make a decision in the best interest of the community that I represent and that every single voice that needed to be heard would be heard.
When the Post Office’s representatives came to Parliament and sat with me, the first questions I asked were, “Is this a genuine consultation? Are you going to listen to the voices in our community? Are you going to look at and study the facts and base your decision on those facts, or is this a fait accompli? I need to know right now.” They both looked me in the eye and made me an absolute cast-iron categorical promise that it was a genuine consultation that would look at the facts and listen to the community, and that they would base their decision on what they saw and heard.
On the back of that, I engaged fully to try to deliver the voices and the information the Post Office’s representatives needed to hear. I made sure that there was a public meeting one evening, to which 200 local community residents turned up in an open-hearted way, so that they could sit with the representatives, feed in their insight and how they use the post office, and make sure that their needs were taken into consideration. That meeting was a difficult one, because people were really concerned, and I made sure that the people who had come from the Post Office were treated with respect, which sometimes meant challenging the people I represent and ensuring that they engaged in a positive way. In other words, I used some of the political capital that they had given me in order, at times, to push back at them. That is a difficult thing to do at such meetings, but in the interests of getting the right outcome it was worth doing.
A petition was set up locally that received 5,400 signatures and there was another petition online that received an additional 2,000 signatures. The voice of the community was heard loud and clear.
The Post Office said of this post office—the Crown post office in Brunswick Town in Hove—that it had spoken to customers who were very willing to make the walk, for 1.1 miles uphill, to another post office, which was in a convenience store that had a counter. However, at the public meeting, not one person said that was the case. The Post Office could not provide me with the names of people who had said they were perfectly happy to make that journey. I went into the Brunswick Town post office several times to speak to customers and I could not find a single customer who said they would rather make that journey of 1.1 miles up a hill than use the post office that was already in their community and that had been there for generations.
So I went back to the Post Office with that information and the Post Office ignored it. I told the Post Office about people who could not make that walk of 1.1 miles, either because they were living with disabilities or living into old age; they simply could not make that journey. The Post Office heard their voices directly, because I made sure that it heard those voices directly.
Then I went in to the Brunswick Town post office, because the Post Office had said to me that in the previous year the footfall and the number of customers for it had fallen. The Post Office showed me statistics to back that up. So, as I say, I went into that post office and when I opened the door I saw something that I had seen very, very regularly—a queue, snaking through the building all the way to the door. Of the three counters, only one was open. In the 15 years that I had lived in that community, I had never seen a situation in which only one counter was open; it was always the case before that the post office had been a hub and all of its counters had been open.
So I spoke to some of the staff in the post office and it turned out that eight months earlier a diktat had come down from the Post Office to close two of the counters and not use them; only one of the counters was to be used. Why was that? I am absolutely convinced that the Post Office was running down that Crown post office, by allowing only one counter to be used and by only allowing the staff there—against their wishes—to use one counter.
It was very clear that the Post Office wanted to drive down the customer numbers, so I wrote to it and asked directly, “Have you asked the question and looked into whether the fall in footfall is due to fewer people wanting to use that branch, or is it because more people are finding it difficult to use that branch, or they just give up before they get to the counter in the first place?” The Post Office could not answer the question.
The process ended and the Post office announced in writing that it was going to close the Crown post office in Brunswick Town. There would be no further engagement and within weeks that post office had closed.
This sorry story ends a year later, when I walked down the street in Brunswick Town and discovered that the Post Office had opened a new branch inside a convenience store next door to the Crown post office that it had closed down, because it said there was no need for it. I repeat: next door. I have absolutely no doubt that I was misled, that the community I represent was misled and—worst of all—that the customers who used and depended on that post office were misled and the staff who had given a career and indeed a lifetime in work to that post office branch were misled. The post office staff’s jobs disappeared and the jobs that have been created in their place have no pension liability and no guarantee that they would have the standards that people who work long-term in the Post Office can expect. And those workers were no longer part of the Post Office family.
We have a Prime Minister who stood on the steps of Downing Street and said she was going to maintain those sorts of rights and tackle injustices. The Post Office is one of her companies; it is an organisation that she runs. However, she has allowed it to dwindle, to be stripped of assets and to be taken away from our high streets, and replaced with something that has less value, that makes less of a contribution to our communities, and that offers less stability and value in the workplace to the people who work for it.
I say to the Minister directly that I understand that she has said that it is not her job to meddle with the running of the Post Office. However, in times such as this, I and my community expect her to roll up her sleeves and get stuck in, because if branches are being taken from our high streets, and MPs and our communities are being misled, we are their elected officials, she is speaking on behalf of the Government and we expect her to act.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and a particular pleasure to follow a very powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). It was a salutary warning, and I suspect that some of my comments will echo the concerns of others about the so-called consultation process. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on her powerful introduction. She speaks for all Labour Members on these important issues.
The announcement a few months ago that Cambridge was one of the post offices to be put through this process was met with incredulity in my city. People are absolutely furious. I will say a few things about our local circumstances, trying not to repeat some of the points that have been very well made already, and then make some general reflections.
The Crown post office in Cambridge has around 15 very experienced staff, who between them have 150 years of experience—experience that is likely to be lost if this process continues. The post office has already been moved across the street—that was not a popular decision eight years ago—from one of the many fine buildings in Cambridge, in order, we were told, to secure its long-term future. There are some interesting definitions of “long-termism” in the modern world. That post office is one of the most successful in the region and possibly, I am told by my colleagues in the Communication Workers Union, in the country. It has been one of the top-selling post offices for travel currency, travel insurance, travel-related products and passport checking. It is one of the top-performing post offices in the area, so we might expect it to be celebrated as a success story.
That post office is also one of the few nationally to carry out biometric services and provide international driving permits, which is what I want to focus on. There has been a huge change in our country for those coming here to work or study, which most of us—who do not have to go through such processes—are probably only dimly aware of. Those people have to have biometric residence permits. If we are to have that system, we also need a system to allow them to register their biometric data, and in my area it is the Crown post office in Cambridge to which they are directed.
[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]
In conducting the research for this speech and talking to people locally about how the whole system works, I stumbled on what can perhaps only be described as a coincidence. In November, just after the announcement of the consultation, guess what quietly happened? That biometric information system has been very quietly transferred from the post office—although it still exists there at the current time—to the local library. However, it is hard to know how anyone would find that out, because if they go to the Home Office website or Post Office website, they will still be directed to the Cambridge Crown post office.
Let us, for the moment, continue to follow the public advice, because biometric residence permits are needed by all foreign nationals from outside the European Economic Area if they want to stay in the UK for longer than six months, extend their visa, or settle in the UK or have other interactions with the Home Office. In areas such as mine, which have huge numbers of people coming to study or work, and contribute to our local economy, this issue is enormously important. For instance, I am told that almost all the 2,000 non-EEA staff at the University of Cambridge will need to have used, or will need to use, those services, and if they cannot go to Cambridge, they will have to go to Huntingdon, Harlow or Romford, which requires hours and hours of travel on public transport.
Jo Stevens
I have a similar situation in Cardiff Central, where the biometric centre was in our post office, which is due to be put into WHSmith. I met with the post office to ask whether the biometric service would transfer to WHSmith, and guess what? It will not. Does my hon. Friend agree that that creates another barrier for people who are already in a vulnerable situation?
Daniel Zeichner
I totally agree, and that is an important point. Apparently, only 37 WHSmith stores across Britain have the wider access for wheelchair users, and if that is no longer available, people from my area would have to travel to Luton, Milton Keynes or London—a major diminution of service. It may be possible that those services can be provided elsewhere. Frankly, who knows? Maybe the Minister can enlighten us. Maybe she can tell us whether the timing of this transfer was random chance or coincidence. Maybe she can guarantee the future of our local library. I do not know, but my guess is that the Government have very little clue about the future, and I doubt that any answers at all will be offered. We shall see.
Other Members have mentioned disability access, and I concur entirely with the comments made about WHSmith in general, which I will not repeat. What I will say is that those of us who have been in and out of WHSmith in Cambridge know that it is already a crowded store. It is not listed by WHSmith as one of its wheelchair-friendly stores, and the idea that it is going to be a pleasant experience for people seems almost unimaginable, frankly. We have huge doubts. These services should be available to people and properly accessible. I say to those running the campaign on behalf of the Post Office that they should be careful of who they are taking on, because we have some pretty powerful campaigners locally. Councillor Gerri Bird led a campaign a few years ago to stop the toilets in the Lion Yard shopping centre in Cambridge being moved from one floor to another. After months of campaigning, she won and the other side lost. I say to the Post Office that it should be careful who it takes on. It would do much better to back down soon, gracefully.
Let me turn to some of the wider issues. As we have heard, the Government have said that they are worried about the high street. That is understandable; we all are. There are huge challenges, but we should not make them worse. This is not just about where a service is provided; as other Members have said, it is about the kind of institution. Many years ago, I worked for John Garrett, the former MP for Norwich South—some Members may just about remember John. He wrote a book, presciently entitled “Westminster: Does Parliament Work?”, which is good reading in these troubled times. I remember going around the local post offices in Norwich early in the morning with him, and the thing that struck us was that at every post office, there was a queue. An accountant, I suspect, would say, “Why are these people standing outside the post office when, if they came an hour or two later, they could just go in and be served?” The answer, of course, was that this was the occasion when most of those people got to see their friends. They were standing outside; as other Members have already said, it was part of a wider social issue. For the bean counters who are looking at the Post Office balance sheet, that probably does not count for anything, but it really counts in looking at the NHS balance sheet, in terms of the impact on people’s mental health from loneliness and so on. That is why the Post Office is a public service, not just a business.
People may also remember a recent, much-loved BBC television series, “Lark Rise to Candleford”. Some will remember the inestimable postmistress Dorcas Lane, who was at the heart of that local community. I suspect that series was much loved partly because it spoke to a conception of Englishness—one of fairness, kindness and public service—that many people still crave. As other hon. Friends have already alluded to, that also goes to the heart of the debate that is happening in the Chamber just a few yards away. Others have written eloquently on these related issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), who was in the Chamber earlier, wrote of the then coalition Government back in 2011:
“The government is not conservative; it is liberal and extreme. Through its indulgence of the banks and corporate and media power, and attempts to sell off parts of our English common life to the highest bidder—forests, waterways, ports, the Post Office, sport and culture—it is systematically destroying the hard-won victories of generations and, in so doing, unravelling the essential fabric of this country.”
These post offices are part of that fabric. For my city of Cambridge—high-tech Cambridge—our post office is part of the essential fabric of our city and our community. I may be dismissed as a romantic socialist, and I would not disown that label, but I will conclude by posing a question to the Minister: what kind of conservative does not understand the place of the post office in an English country town or community?
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. You will get the idea that today, tempers are fraught and passions are running high. There is genuine concern about the impact of these policies on our communities, which are met with a Government who are stubbornly pursuing a course of action that has no support. You would be forgiven for believing that you are still chairing the 1922 Committee, but no: this is a debate on post offices, with MPs who are genuinely concerned about the impact of these changes on the fabric of our communities and the future of our high streets. We can dismiss post offices as places where people go just to post a letter or send or collect a parcel, but they are more than that: they are the community. They are part of our collective identity, secure a sense of belonging, and are also important to our sense of place. They are critical to the fabric of our community.
Oldham has seen more than its fair share of changes, and more than its fair share of taking the burden of modernisation and austerity. It has seen every single one of its day care centres and every single one of its council-run youth centres closed. It has seen thousands of staff sacked from the local authority. It has seen its police stations in Chadderton, Royton and Hollinwood closed; it has seen every single custody cell in a town of 250,000 people closed. It has seen the magistrates court closed; it has seen the county court closed. It has seen the taxpayer-supported Royal Bank of Scotland close every single branch in a community of 250,000 people, and when RBS decided to close its high street bank, what did it say? It said, “Part of our consideration is how close our existing branch network is to the post office network, because that will provide an alternative banking function for the local community.”
In these types of consultations, the organisation contacts the MP for the constituency where the branch is based. Ironically, however, Ward Street, where Oldham post office and the Royal Bank of Scotland sit, is on the boundary between Oldham West and Oldham East. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) was contacted and consulted about the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch, and I was consulted about the closure of the post office across the road, but never the two shall meet. There was no consideration of the impact that the Royal Bank of Scotland closing would have on the post office, and the Post Office gave no consideration to the impact on the high street and local community of the closure and relocation that it was proposing. That post office has just undergone a significant modernisation programme, with far more self-service facilities to free up staff time and so provide for a wide range of services that will not be transferred to the WHSmith branch in Oldham’s Spindles shopping centre. That is important—the branch is heavily used. We have not been given the exact usage numbers, but the Post Office admits that the Oldham branch is one of the largest and most heavily used branches in the north-west. That branch is extremely valued by the community.
Critically, the branch is located on one of our main streets, where buses drop people off. There are 62 drop-offs every hour on that road outside the post office. Interestingly, just beyond it is one of the steepest inclines in Oldham, which is quite a steep town anyway—anyone who has been there knows that it is a big hill with a town plonked on the top of it. That is the steepest incline down to the shopping centre, so to get from the string of bus stops to the shopping centre where WHSmith is located, elderly people and those with limited mobility will have to go down one of the steepest inclines in Oldham. At the moment, they can park in the loading bay, or on the yellow lines if they have a blue badge, and pop straight in without any problem. They cannot do that in the shopping centre: a blue-badge holder visiting Oldham shopping centre pays the full price, the same as every other car park user. Straightaway, people who rely on transport and their blue badge to use a post office will be hit with a charge that they currently do not have to pay, just for using that essential facility.
Oldham has a far wider range of services than neighbouring Rochdale town centre, where the beautiful, stunning Crown post office was closed with the promise that one would reopen in future. We are now years on and the replacement has not followed. In Ashton-under-Lyne next door, the Crown post office, in a beautiful Victorian building, was closed and then relocated to WHSmith in the shopping centre. Many of the services provided in Oldham are not provided in our neighbouring towns, so Oldham provides services for nearly 700,000 residents who need, for instance, to use a biometric enrolment service. If a non-EU national needs a residence permit or a permit to work, they have to go and use the biometric enrolment service there. If they do not use the current post office facilities—I understand the contract has been let out elsewhere—the nearest venue to go to from Oldham is Sheffield. How does that make sense when we are just about—potentially; who knows?—to leave the European Union and we do not know what immigration arrangements will be in place and what permits might be needed in future.
The idea of downgrading and changing the service is an absolute nonsense. Even now, particularly in Oldham, where we have a large Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian community, a very heavily used service will be taken away from local people and will be transferred.
What about the Care Quality Commission ID services? If someone working in the health and social care industry needs their ID checked to make sure that they are fit to work, they have to go to the post office to get it checked. If that service is not transferred from Oldham into WHSmith, people will have to go to Gorton or to Harpurhey, and there is not a single direct bus route to either of those places.
What about CRB checks if someone wants to work with young people? Teachers and youth workers have to get their ID checked. The service is currently provided in Oldham’s Crown post office, but is not provided in neighbouring Rochdale or Ashton town centres. The idea of downgrading those services for such a large body of the population is an absolute nonsense that shows the lack of co-ordination across Government. Has any consultation taken place with a Home Office Minister on the contractual change for the biometric enrolment service? Has any conversation taken place with the Department of Health and Social Care on the changes to the CQC ID services and the CRB check services if they are not transferred to WHSmith? Financial services, ID checking and current and credit card accounts are currently provided in Oldham, but not in neighbouring Rochdale or Ashton town centre, but they have the potential to be lost during the move, too.
We hit the ground running with the campaign in Oldham and started an online petition. Between our street petition that started in December and the online petition, we have about 2,500 signatures of local people. The hallmark of every one of the conversations that took place concerns how baffled people are that the move is even being proposed. People have been told that all the closures and the downgrading of the high street is because of austerity. They have been told how difficult it is for retail and how everyone needs to take their fair share of austerity and that is why they are losing all these other public services. People have been told that and for quite a long time they accepted that that is just the way it is—times are very difficult and that is the impact. Not a single person can explain why the move makes sense. It makes no sense to the community and the people who use the post office. It makes no sense for the high street to lose a vital anchor to support that part of the town centre and our Market Hall and the traders who operate there.
What about the fabric of our community? We have heard many fantastic contributions about the social role that a post office plays apart from the commercial transactions that are provided. When we hear people defending the modernisation programme—I use “modernisation” loosely—they say, “Things have to change. Things will never stay the way they are. You have to keep up with a changing world.” The post office modernisation programme is a good example of how it has tried to keep up with demand. The number of branches in the 1980s was 22,000. It is now down to 11,000, so we have lost half the network over the past 30 years. That is modernisation—if you like closing stuff—but it has taken on a far wider range of services, trying to be more commercial and trying to attract footfall in its premises. By and large, it has done a reasonable job and the community has benefited.
The Crown post offices have shouldered the burden. When we look at the closures across all the post offices, agency post offices are down by 9%, but Crown post offices are down by 29%. We have lost a third of our Crown post office network as a result of successive closures, but still the public pay into the post office network as a vital public facility. What is the deal? There was no public payback with the Royal Bank of Scotland. Taxpayers bailed out the bankers, and what thanks did they get? They walked away from every one of our towns, cities and high streets. What is the payback for the taxpayer with the post office network? What is the community dividend for the investment that we collectively make in essential public services? It cannot be a repeat of the Royal Bank of Scotland’s “to hell with the community, turn your back on the community”, simply because the Minister would not take responsibility and says, “This is just all commercial.” Such decisions are not commercial when generations of facilities that have been built up to provide that infrastructure in our community will be gone and can never be replaced.
Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this debate. She has seen the passion in the room today. I also congratulate the CWU trade union for the work that it does in leading the charge against the changes. The Minister has an opportunity. She is a young new Minister looking to set out on her ministerial career and to make her mark. Let everything that we have learnt over the past two to two and a half years be a lesson for everybody. If we pursue stubbornly a narrow direction that does not have support, ignoring what those with concerns say, we will end up in a cul-de-sac and people will be marked by that. I do not believe the Minister wants that mark on her reputation. I believe she wants a reputation as a Minister who understands that we are all here to represent our communities and to listen and to act on the legitimate concerns raised. Let that be her ministerial reputation and not one of stubbornness and closed-mindedness.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I will explain that we have just over half an hour before the wind-up speeches need to begin. Three Back-Bench Members are seeking to catch my eye. I would rather avoid imposing a time limit, but if the three can consider each other we will avoid it.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing this timely and much needed debate. Much has already been said about the damage that the downgrading of post offices can do, and I want to provide examples of what has happened in my constituency. Over the past few years, both before and since my election, Lewisham West and Penge has seen three post offices downgraded and franchised out in locations in Forest Hill, Sydenham and Beckenham. Two are Crown branches. The Forest Hill post office now operates out of a WHSmith shop, occupying some of the upper floor. Although it is serviced by a lift, it is cramped, the queue is frequently lengthy, and it is potentially an unfit environment for more vulnerable people. We must remember that vulnerable people are more likely to require the services offered by a fully equipped post office, including the elderly, those who might not have access to the internet and those who have difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English and require a face-to-face service.
In Beckenham, the Crown branch property has been sold off and the service desks moved out of my constituency and up the high street to a WHSmith store. We have heard numerous examples of why WHSmith stores are not fit for purpose as post offices. Some of the services that used to be run in the Beckenham post office are now located in a convenience store, which has the post office that I now have to use, whereas I used to go to the Crown one. I do not want to do a disservice to the very nice chap that runs the post office there, but it is simply not an appropriate location for a post office. It is a convenience shop and space is limited, and it has only one counter. The queue often trails around the whole shop because demand is high, and the one counter simply cannot keep pace with the people who want to use the services. For a wheelchair user, or someone like me who often has a pushchair with them or a small child in tow, it is neither an efficient nor a convenient experience. The queue snakes between shelves full of alcohol on one side and the freezer on the other. I have lost count of the number of times when I have been there with my three-year-old and have had to tell him no, he can have neither wine nor ice cream while I am trying to send a parcel.
Joking aside, it is a real issue. The Crown post office in Sydenham has just been franchised out. It is and has always been a hub of our community and I remember using that post office when I was a young girl to get my passport and pay into my national savings account. It has saddened us in Sydenham that the franchise has been awarded to a stationery company, ZCO Ltd, with no good track record of running post offices. We are all incredibly worried. The Crown post office in Sydenham provided biometric services, which a number of my constituents had to use. Now they are being told they have to travel five miles to Brixton to get access to the services. It might not sound far to travel on public transport in London, but let us think for a moment: often it is vulnerable people who need those services. Sometimes they do not have recourse to public funds. Affording the bus fares to and from Brixton is not a very practical solution. With each and every downgrade, initial assurances are offered that services will remain unchanged and facilities will be kept on a par, yet whenever branches in Lewisham West and Penge have been downgraded, the assurances given upon franchising have quickly unravelled, leaving my constituents with a sub-par postal service experience.
As a former employment rights lawyer, I have deep concerns about the employment of staff members at franchised-out branches. When I have written to the Post Office seeking assurances, at the outset, they have always been given, but what is the reality? Some protections exist under TUPE but the CWU found that, in 2014-15, only 10 out of 400 staff from Crown post office branches that were closed were TUPE-ed over to the new retailer. In 2016, the figure was six out of 200—3% of staff. Those are shocking figures. Not only is that bad for jobs and workers’ employment; it is bad for customers’ experience. People employed by the Post Office service are highly skilled and trained staff, and they are used to the face-to-face interactions that the job requires. When such high-quality trained permanent staff are lost, services inevitably decline.
We should think about the effect that post office closures and downgrades have in the high street. When we ran the campaign to save the Sydenham Crown post office, local businesses said they desperately wanted to keep it because it would mean footfall on the high street. People who went to the post office would shop in local, usually very small, independent retailers. There is now a lot of worry locally about the effect on the high street of the downgrade. Crown post offices provide stability to high streets. A lot can be said about the transition to online commerce, but one step that the Government can and should take to protect high streets is to stop franchising out our post offices. It is not the only solution, but allowing those vital services to continue on the high street, serving our communities and constituents, is surely in everyone’s interest. The downgrades and closures, and the franchising out, need to stop now.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, in such an important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to the Communication Workers Union for its tireless work on this issue. Having served as a union representative with the CWU, I have witnessed the dedication of the union and its members in fighting against Crown post office closures. I have been with Royal Mail for 28 years, so I know that post offices are central to daily life in our constituencies. They serve as the hubs for towns and villages, and are the very lifeline of rural communities. It is not just that they serve the public; they have their complete confidence and trust. Post offices are trusted to deliver, receive and collect goods in letters or parcels daily. The public know that they are staffed by dedicated postal staff who are proud to work in the Post Office network and who not only have local knowledge and contacts but are firmly rooted in the communities that they serve.
Postal workers have good jobs that they are proud to do, with terms and conditions second to none, secured through agreement between the CWU and Post Office management. The principle of the Post Office is that it is a business that serves people’s needs, not one that pursues profit. That is the reason why it has dedicated staff who are always willing to go the extra mile, who treat their customers’ goods as if they were their own, who always provide extra help and support to vulnerable customers, displaying patience and willingness to help customers in need, who will help and guide customers when a form needs to be filled in, who take the time to speak to their customers, and who use their local knowledge and contacts to contribute to daily community life. It is that sheer dedication to the customers that has made our post offices so cherished by the public.
The Post Office is not a new business. It has lasted over 500 years. Postal workers have been proud to wear the uniform and are proud of the Post Office’s history. I remember when the Royal Mail was one big network, dedicated to serving the public good, with postal workers united in purpose to support customers—as they still do. We never missed a single letterbox. We delivered six out of seven days a week. We were out in all weathers, come rain or shine. We dealt with the public’s goods across the UK, from Land’s End to John O’Groats. We worked day and night to collect, transport, separate and deliver goods within a 24-hour turnaround. For 21 years, I fought successive Governments to stop the sale of Royal Mail, but eventually a Tory-Lib Dem coalition was successful in selling it off. I said then—and say it today—that Royal Mail was not for sale.
Despite the sale of Royal Mail, Post Office Ltd was kept in public hands, but post office closures soon followed, and some post offices began to be moved into the private sector. Along with redundancies, there were attacks on terms and conditions by the new management. Good people, who were dedicated to and passionate about their work, were treated as just a number—and that number was the amount it would cost to make them redundant. A choice was put before them of accepting a redundancy package or continuing in their job with worse terms and conditions than they had enjoyed. Let me be frank: that is theft. They steal our jobs and our terms and conditions, all of which we won through the collective efforts of our unions and their members.
We were told that some closures were necessary—that some were carried out to protect other post offices and that no further closures would occur. Each time, those promises to the workers and the communities that rely upon post offices were broken. We now face the prospect of the Government giving away more public money to help to sell off a further 74 Crown post offices, severing the connection between the post office and the community and leading to the loss of more dedicated staff. It is another blow to Britain’s high streets. That public money is being awarded to WHSmith, a company that holds the hotly contested Which? award of being voted worst retailer by consumers. It offers low pay for its staff, poor terms and conditions, and service standards lower than those expected in our post offices. This race to the bottom will simply lead to a decline in the service that the public receive and a decline in standards, which will tarnish the proud history of the post office network and its dedicated staff.
I will do all I can—I know the CWU will do likewise—to fight the planned sell-off of our post offices. From the support shown in this debate by the Labour party, we can say that we will be doing all we can, unlike the Tory party, given the empty seats on the Government Benches. Not one Government Back Bencher has turned up to try to defend themselves. The battle to protect our vital post offices is one that must be fought and, more importantly, it can be won. I pay tribute to Liam Murphy, a CWU rep. I stood alongside him, Glasgow and District Amal postal workers and Carole and David Bowmaker, who are good, hard-working union reps. We fought twice, and we won. East Kilbride still stands today as a Crown post office. If the battle comes again, I will stand with the same people, standing up for that local community. I also pay tribute to the CWU national officer, Andy Furey, who is here today. He has dedicated his life to fighting these battles. He has been all around Britain talking to the people now sitting at home, wondering, “What happened to that good job I had?”
This Government meddle, meddle, meddle. It is their job to meddle, but I ask them to stop the closure and sale of post offices, work with the CWU, listen to local communities and invest in our Crown post offices, protect the high-quality service that the public deserve and expect, and provide some long-overdue job security to the dedicated staff.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
Andy Slaughter
I will, but in my own manner and style. [Interruption.] Do not worry, there is no risk of passion. It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. We have not quite had 48 Members talking about posting letters today, but I hope you feel at home nevertheless. Labour Members are much less fractious, which is helpful.
We have had such a high turnout because of the excellent timeliness of the debate. We have had a good debate, and that is thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who always captures the zeitgeist. As a former Hammersmith Broadway councillor, she will know how much we have grievously suffered in Hammersmith and Fulham from the depletion of the post office network. Indeed, the Crown post office in her ex-ward moved some years ago and was franchised into WHSmith. In the past few weeks and months, I have had complaints about the service operating there.
One by one, we have lost every Crown post office through closure or through their being stuffed into a WHSmith branch. Last year, we had one left, which was the Shepherds Bush post office on Shepherds Bush Green. It is a good site and a dedicated building, and it is quite famous, because one of its frequent customers was the comedian Richard Herring. When he had his Metro column, he used to write about the Shepherds Bush post office and the more eccentric members of the constituency who he used to meet on his almost daily travels there. It was a good, friendly place, and it had wonderful staff with long service there. It was a busy branch, made more so by the fact, as is often the case in town centres nowadays, that banks were closing branches and referring people to the post office. We thought it was good.
Last year, we were told that the post office had to move because the lease was up on the building and the landlord was redeveloping. Reluctantly, we accepted that. I spent a long time helping to look for another site in the town centre. I spoke to the local shopping centre and we tried to provide something else, but talking to the Post Office is like banging one’s head against a brick wall, because the only deal in town is WHSmith. I do not know what the commercial terms are, but I suspect that the Post Office gets the space for free, or something like that, because WHSmith is so desperate to increase footfall in its pretty lousy shops. The Post Office is made an offer it cannot refuse on those terms. That is what happened.
The post office closed and moved a five or 10-minute walk away, depending on mobility, to the Westfield shopping centre. As we have heard, the office is hidden away in the back of a WHSmith with no natural daylight. Because it is the largest shopping centre in Europe and has a good footfall, the office has survived and kept its busyness and activity, but with a completely different clientele. I am glad to see that we have the support of the National Pensioners Convention and many disability rights groups in pointing out that it is not just about the facilities in the post office, but about the accessibility. Most of the elderly and local people who used to use that post office now go to sub-post offices half a mile or a mile away because they are more accessible than where the Crown post office has moved to. None the less, things continued.
The one thing we were told was that, despite the disruption and despite moving to a less favourable and less convenient location, the branch would remain a Crown post office. In all the meetings I had with the Post Office—this was only a year ago—it said that the branch would be a Crown post office with all the advantages of that. Guess what? When the wholesale franchising and closure programme was announced last year, we found out that, no, the branch would become franchised and part of the WHSmith network.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) and many others, I pay tribute to the CWU, which has run an effective campaign drawing attention to the issue. The Post Office thought it could get away with it because the public would not notice a change in ownership. The changes were not necessarily, as was the case with Shepherds Bush, about moving the facility, so the Post Office thought there would no apparent change. The CWU has done an excellent job in drawing attention to the matter, because the implications are severe.
To take the example of Shepherds Bush, the manager will leave and retire after more than 20 years’ service. She has been excellent. Half the staff are similarly going to take the settlements on offer and go. The others all want to move elsewhere in the post office network, to those few Crown post offices and other services that remain open. Not one wants to join WHSmith, even though some of the staff at Shepherds Bush have already moved there from other Crown post offices closed in the recent past, including the Acton post office in the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq).
Why do people not want to work for WHSmith? It is not too difficult to work out. When I looked at the new rosters, sometimes less than half the number of staff will be on duty. I was there just before Christmas, and it is a busy office with queues, yet WHSmith thinks that where five staff are on at the moment, it can manage with two in future. That is bad for the customers and for staff, too. The terms and conditions are appalling in terms of pensions, holiday and pay. People will be on the minimum wage and could be on half the pay they would have earned as an experienced postal worker working for the Post Office. I am sure that many of the staff at WHSmith try to do a very good job, but as an employer it is appalling. Anyone who does not believe me should follow the Twitter account, @WHS_Carpet, which is a rather tongue-in-cheek look at the extraordinary way in which that business conducts itself. We do not know whether it will have a future. What a risk to take, putting post offices into those stores.
I am afraid that Post Office Ltd has shown a contempt for very loyal staff, who have often stayed with it over many years. It has also shown an attitude of defeatism. Where is the leadership? Where is the confidence in the services that it provides? There is none. It is all about cutting back.
That comes on top of a number of other initiatives that have depleted the network. I know that we are not talking about sub-post offices today, but within the last two to three years I have also had three sub-post offices—two of which were the nearest ones to Shepherd’s Bush Green—close “temporarily”. I think one has been temporarily closed for more than three years now, on the basis that we cannot find anywhere for it to go.
Overall, the service that is available is becoming worse, and for those who rely on it, which is still many people, there are longer distances to travel and longer queues to stand in. I would like to know from the Minister what the justification is for paying out quite large sums from the public purse to try to induce members of staff to retire, move on or take redundancy at this point. Presumably that only helps WHSmith, because it does not have to inherit those staff under TUPE conditions.
I would like to know what happens to all the equipment in the post offices. Very expensive and often quite new equipment has been fitted there. Is that simply handed over to WHSmith, or are payments made? I would like to know why senior managers in Post Office Ltd have received 7%—in some cases 9%—pay rises this year, given what they are presiding over. The staff have received less than 3%.
I feel that I have been misled over what has happened in relation to the post office network in my constituency. I also think that the Communication Workers Union and the staff have been misled, because they have worked in good faith over many years to try to ensure that the business is profitable. That has meant, in some cases, reducing staffing—by agreement and in the proper way, through collective bargaining—in a joint effort and in the belief that the management were sincere in their efforts to ensure that this viable Crown network would survive. All they have actually achieved is to do the dirty work of the Post Office, which now has fewer staff that it has to pass over to WHSmith. That makes it easier to do, but even so, it is relying on money.
There has not been a proper public consultation. I was struck by the comment from Post Office Ltd to the all-party parliamentary group that this is
“a commercial decision for us, not them”,
“them” being the public. This is a matter of great concern to the public, and it has not been given proper consultation or publicity.
I end by asking the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, a moratorium on the closures and changes. Please can we look again at the network, and have a proper review of services before we proceed in this way? Otherwise we will stumble through this and be back here again in six months to a year facing more closures of Crown post offices, until the network does not exist at all. It is part of our heritage, and part of something that we can be very proud of in this country. It still provides an excellent public service where it operates, and we are letting down not only the organisation’s staff, but all the customers who rely on post offices across mine and each one of our constituencies.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing the debate and for her very informative introduction, and all those who have contributed for the very consensual nature of the debate. Some 15 Members have spoken so far, which says something about the strength of feeling in the House.
As we have heard, Crown post offices are large post offices that are directly managed by Post Office Ltd and account for about 2% of post offices. I am grateful for the Communication Workers Union briefing, which is very informative. It highlights how, despite that small share of the overall network, Crown post offices have historically brought in between 10% and 20% of the Post Office’s overall revenue—a point that several Members have made, and which is well worth emphasising.
There are no Crown post offices in my constituency—unsurprisingly, given how few are left across the country as a whole. Having said that, it is fair to point out that Linlithgow and East Falkirk gained two post offices between 2011 and 2018, increasing their number from 18 to 20. However, that figure includes hosted outreach venues. As we have heard, a variety of services are offered at different ones, which adds to the confusion of the public when such events happen.
On 11 October last year, the Post Office announced an agreement with WHSmith that would see up to 41 further Crown branches relocated within WHSmith stores this year, and WHSmith take over the running of 33 Crown post offices already hosted in its stores. The decision to turn 74 Crown post offices into franchises in those stores is alarming for a number of reasons; Members have rehearsed them well, and I do not need to go into all the technicolour detail again. However, reports that the franchising is being done without consultation with existing local post offices are particularly alarming. That means that competition risks destabilising the existing network even further. There must be more consultation and strategic consideration on franchising. It is alarming to hear that in some cases franchised WHSmith outlets are opening within five minutes of existing post offices, and without any advance notice having been given to existing postmasters.
We know that the Post Office’s director of sales and trade marketing has stated that there is no contingency plan in the event of WHSmith collapsing, even though it has, as has been pointed out, experienced 14 consecutive years of sales decline. Although we would not wish that to happen to any business, the reality of our modern high streets is that businesses are folding on a regular basis, so a contingency is, in my opinion, required. That is before we consider the fact that WHSmith was voted the worst high street retailer by Which? consumers in 2018, having been ranked in the bottom two over the previous eight years. That raises a serious question about the quality of service on offer from that franchisee.
We must ensure that further franchising happens only after consultation with local businesses. It is essential that our post office network remains robust for communities and businesses across the entire country. Given the mismanagement, the UK Government cannot have that as a priority. Post offices play an important role for our rural businesses and are part of the fabric of our communities. I will not pretend that my constituency is particularly rural, but it has many rural aspects; it is a mixture of small towns and villages between the major cities. Increasingly, as banks have gradually withdrawn from many of our local high streets, post offices have become a last-stop banking facility for many people.
Post offices provide an important part of national infrastructure, particularly as parcel delivery has been growing with the rise of e-commerce, which allows us to have many more businesses throughout our communities. Small businesses, especially rural ones, contribute more than £200 billion to the UK economy. They rely on post offices, with an estimated 80% likely to lose money if rural post offices close. More than 2 million small businesses—62% of all small businesses—use post offices at least once a month, and in rural areas, they are vital, with 36% of rural businesses using post offices at least weekly.
Due to issues including the new postmasters’ contract, Crown post offices are closing more and more regularly. The UK Government must ensure that the post office network remains able to cover all areas of the country, especially rural ones. More than 1,500 of the 11,547 post offices in the UK were temporary as of March 2018. That is 426 more than in 2014, according to post office data collected by the House of Commons Library.
Marion Fellows
The question of post offices temporarily closing is really down to the fact that Post Office Ltd cannot contract new sub-postmasters to run them. That is not to the benefit of my constituents in Wishaw, who lost their post office for almost four weeks last summer.
Martyn Day
I thank my hon. Friend for making an excellent point. I hope that the Minister is listening.
The Scottish National party supports a strong network of post office branches, which are the backbone of local communities and businesses. Many post offices are offering a greater range of services, including paying in money, after many local bank branches have closed. Some 537,000 businesses are registered in rural areas, accounting for one in four of all companies. They are very creative—almost half are considered to be innovators—and they contribute, as I pointed out, more than £200 billion to our economy. Small rural businesses are more likely to use post offices for deliveries and paying bills, and twice as likely to use them for withdrawing or depositing cash. Citizens Advice found that eight in 10 small businesses in remote rural areas would lose money if local post offices were closed. That should be a salutary economic warning to us.
The UK Government’s disastrous privatisation of Royal Mail and recent mishandling of post office management show that they cannot be trusted with our public services. The current contracts make it harder for sub-postmasters to afford to keep going, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) pointed out. At the same time, Post Office Ltd recorded net profits of £35 million in 2017-18, up from £13 million in 2016-17. As hon. Members have pointed out, its chief executive Paula Vennells got a 7% pay rise last year, while postmasters took an average pay cut of 4.5% and 11,500 Post Office workers received a combined £17 million pay cut. I ask the Minister to take urgent action to review the contract for sub-postmasters that was introduced in 2012.
My final point is about the effect on footfall on the high street. Closing a post office and moving its services to a franchisee will not increase the franchisee’s footfall, since many of the customers were already using the high street; it simply reduces the footfall travelling across the high street and has a detrimental impact on other businesses. What we actually need is to ensure throughput on the high street. If a post office closes and is moved out of a town centre location, that can be even more detrimental to the local community.
There are many concerns about the proposal and its effect on customers, staff and local communities. At the end of the day, we must remember that the Post Office is wholly owned by the Government. I implore the Minister to step in and halt the process.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Graham. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this debate and delivering an impressive and eloquent speech. Passions have risen high today, which illustrates the value of the post office network to hon. Members present and to people in the community, so it is hugely disappointing to see the empty seats on the Conservative Benches.
Post offices are a vital community asset that serve as an anchor for individuals and local businesses, as many hon. Members have highlighted. Citizens Advice surveys have shown that half of Britons say that a post office branch is the most important service in their local community. In rural areas, the importance is even greater: one rural resident in five says that without their local post office they would lose contact with friends or neighbours. Post offices are hubs rooted in community and history, and they have innovated: services have grown and now cover some Government services, while postmasters have been innovative in providing new products to accommodate the rise of online shopping.
At the same time, it is not a revelation that our high streets are struggling. In October, the Chancellor took a “too little, too late” approach to the crisis, showing the Government’s lack of commitment to our town centres. Although they shirk responsibility for the collapse of our high streets, the Government are too eager to discount their own role in overseeing the managed decline of a long-established and vital part of our high street: our post offices.
Our debate today has focused on Crown post offices, the large flagship post offices that are in prominent high street locations and are directly owned and managed by Post Office Ltd. Over the past five years, the Post Office, which is entirely owned by the Government, has announced the closure of 150 Crown post offices—40% of its 2013 Crown post office network. The closure and franchise programme has come in three waves, and the latest announcement in October 2018 stated that a further 74 Crown post offices were being closed, with an estimated 700 jobs at risk.
There is a strength of feeling about the closures across all parts of the country. I anticipate that the Minister will argue that this is not a privatisation process, but franchising is by definition a model part of privatisation. This Government drove the disastrous privatisation of our Royal Mail, many of the consequences of which we are seeing today, with private shareholders creaming off millions in dividends while services are on the decline. I am afraid that the franchising programme appears to be an incremental step in the same direction, privatising our Post Office one Crown at a time.
The impact of the closure and franchise programme is significant for the public purse, for the accessibility, quality and breadth of the service provided to the public, and for the sustainability of the network. Our high streets face a crisis and it is being compounded by the Government-managed decline of the Post Office. As I wrote in a recent article:
“The Government may continue to peddle the myth that it has no agency over our high streets—the truth is they are willingly letting a proud institution and the public down.”
They are letting the Post Office fall by the wayside in an appalling act of negligence.
Plucking post offices out of the heart of business hubs, as the closure of local Crowns does, is bad for local business and bad for the Post Office. It exacerbates financial exclusion in deprived areas, where—in the light of the significant bank closures in recent years—local people may have no access to financial services. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has been vocal about the proposed relocation of her local Crown away from the town centre and into an area that has seen a 15% decline in footfall over two years. It is an economic fallacy to suggest that shifting a post office to a quieter part of town, away from the economic activity, will be in any way helpful to the long-term sustainability of the network.
Indeed, in allowing the transfer of counters into WHSmith, the Government risk the viability and sustainability of communities’ access to post offices. It has been suggested that WHSmith is shifting its priorities away from the high street, as highlighted by its acquisition of InMotion, a US company known for airport services. That is worrying and raises serious questions about the retailer’s long-term viability and its desire to be on the high street. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) told us, there has recently been a 3% decline in profits. It is therefore surprising not only that Post Office is choosing to partner with WHSmith in this way, but that when pressed during a meeting of the all-party group on post offices, Post Office representatives provided no reassurance about any contingency plans that they may have prepared for the event of a collapse.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle), and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) spoke eloquently about the lack of meaningful consultation in their constituencies. Indeed, during the all-party group meeting, we learned that decisions on closures had already been made and that the consultation process was merely asking for little bits of information about whether people thought they had disability access—someone in the senior management actually said that. I challenged him, saying that the consultations should be asking the public about the closures, and that responsibility for disability access should lie with the management of the post office in question.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of access, because clearly many disabled people use post offices. Does she agree that if the proposal will mean less access to post offices, it should surely be stopped?
Gill Furniss
I very much agree, and I will go into that point in more detail later.
Post Office management claim that they will have six months’ notice if a retailer that hosts a Post Office counter collapses, but in reality a collapse could be immediate and would risk the total closure of the counter. It seems reasonable that contingency planning should be done to prepare for all eventualities. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Post Office about the matter? Can she assure us that she is aware of reasonable contingency plans for any of those scenarios?
My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) referred to the independent reports published by Consumer Focus in 2012 and by Citizens Advice in 2016, which looked at the impact of closing and franchising former Crown post offices and locating them in WHSmith branches. They concluded that it has led to an increase in queuing and service times, a deterioration in customer service and advice, poor disabled access, and a reduction in the number of counter positions. As hon. Friends have pointed out, the retailer has been voted as providing some of the worst customer service in the UK—surely not a ringing endorsement.
The impact of these changes on local communities is significant, and vulnerable people, the disabled and the old suffer the most. The general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, Jan Shortt, has said:
“Older people are some of the biggest users of the Post Office, and many rely on being able to talk to expert staff, but the move to franchise services to WHSmith is going to be bad for customers...pensioners will find some of the offices are no longer easily accessible or particularly private. This will become a second class service if we don’t stop these plans immediately.”
Similarly, the chief executive of the deaf and disabled rights charity, Inclusion London, and representative of the UK-wide Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance of disabled people and their organisations, Tracey Lazard, said:
“Replacing accessible Post Office premises with a post office counter squeezed into the back of a WHSmith store can leave Disabled people at a significant disadvantage, particularly people with a mobility impairment. Post Office Ltd should be taking action to maximise the accessibility of its premises and services rather than taking this retrograde step that cannot be justified and will instead further Disabled people’s exclusion.”
Liz McInnes
Given that Crown post offices are Government property, and that Post Office Ltd is proposing a change that may well be detrimental to disabled people, does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely incumbent on it to carry out an equality impact assessment?
Gill Furniss
I completely agree. I am sure we will be asking the Minister whether she will address that, as it would seem that it is completely irresponsible of Post Office Ltd not to do so. It should be at the heart of any consultation with the public and the organisations I have referred to, which represent many of those people.
Despite fierce local opposition to the closures and the franchising programme, the Post Office has not undertaken serious and meaningful consultation and has been clear the closures will go ahead. At the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for post offices in October, when asked that the consultation process consider the range of views on the matter, senior Post Office representatives were forced to admit that the decisions about the closures had been made, and that the consultation would merely be an exchange of information and a look at further details. Given the Post Office’s public mandate and the fierce opposition to the closures, that is astonishing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) highlighted the particular impact that the closures will have on disabled constituents in our communities. There is also the impact on financial inclusion, as well as on the many other services, including the very important biometrics and essential Home Office information and documents that are issued in post offices. In the end, despite huge public opposition, a large amount of public funds have been used, with significant job losses and significant closures.
The Minister will no doubt repeat what she has said before about not having overview of Post Office structures and processes, referring to the fact that these are commercial decisions for the Post Office. However, I refer her to a petition that the current Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), presented in March 2008. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan cited it earlier, and it is worth mentioning again. That petition urged the Government to “instruct” the Post Office to halt the closure of the post office in Maidenhead and
“to listen to the views of local people in respect of their objection to the closure of this vital part of the local community.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 142P.]
Perhaps the Minister could take a lead from the Prime Minister under whom she serves, call in Post Office management and instruct them to halt the closures. Instead of investing in our post offices, maintaining expert staff and broadening the services available, the Post Office under this Government is going backwards.
I applaud the Communication Workers Union for its campaign, Save our Post Office, and its championing and protecting of workers’ pay and conditions of service. At the same time as post offices are closing, sub-postmasters are seeing a decline in remuneration. Many have written telling me they are just about breaking even but earning less than minimum wage, and services are declining. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) gave worrying examples of this trend of many sub-postmasters losing their livelihood and acquiring significant debt. I have had correspondence from a sub-postmistress who told me that she is likely to lose her home because the figures she was given when taking on that sub-post office have never been realised.
How is the Minister scrutinising the Post Office’s strategy and what it means for the service? Will she outline what consultation there will be to ensure the strategy brings in relevant stakeholders and the public in a proper wide-ranging consultation? I am quite astounded that the Minister did not once come to the House so that parliamentarians could have the opportunity to scrutinise these decisions and what they mean for our constituents.
The Labour party has been clear. We want to grow the service, end the closures of our Crown post offices, maintain good pay and conditions for staff and innovate into the future, because we believe in our public institutions and what they mean to the public. At last year’s election, we pledged to create a commission to look into setting up a post bank, which would be an important step forward in financial inclusion and would also provide important income streams to maintain, sustain and grow post office services more widely.
I am pleased we have had the opportunity to debate this important matter today. I urge the Minister to recognise the strength of feeling expressed in today’s debate and reconsider her position. I urge her to take a more considered approach with the Post Office—a publicly funded institution—first, by halting the closures and, secondly, by holding Post Office Ltd to account for the decisions it is making that are having a negative impact on our constituents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this important debate. Although I am one of only a few Tories in the room, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I recognise their passion as well as the importance that post offices represent to MPs.
As a constituency MP, I understand the valuable role of the post office for me and for my constituents. Post offices play a vital role at the heart of our communities and are an essential part of our villages, towns and cities, so the future direction of the Post Office is important not only to the Government, but to all our constituencies.
The festive season has just passed, when the dedication of Post Office staff across the country was shown. They come out in force to help our constituents and deliver the parcels and letters destined for our loved ones. I thank the Post Office and Royal Mail staff for the efforts they have put in over recent months. It is estimated that more than 60 million customers visited post office branches in the run-up to Christmas, and I want to mention one small rural post office in Herefordshire that opened its doors this year to host Christmas dinner for those who would otherwise have been alone. That highlights the social value of post offices, not only within our high streets, but beyond.
To repeat what I indicated in November’s debate on post office franchising, this Government value and recognise the economic and social importance of post offices to people, communities and businesses across the UK. That is why we made a commitment in our manifesto to safeguard the post office network and support the provision of rural services.
Ian Murray
On the manifesto commitment to protect post offices, is it still Conservative party policy to make the post office the front office of Government?
Kelly Tolhurst
What is definitely Government policy is to make sure that we have a network of post offices that offer a wide range of services to our constituents, and that that is sustainable into the future. Franchising is not a closure programme. It is a way to secure better sustainability for the future of our post offices, and it is a good thing that Post Office is working with high street retailers to recognise that.
The performance of the Post Office over the past decade shows that the network is at its most stable in a generation. Between 2010 and 2018 we provided nearly £2 billion to maintain and invest in the national network of at least 11,500 post offices.
Jim McMahon
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response so far, but it would be good to get confirmation that this will move on, because we cannot keep having these debates every few months. Does she realise that the outreach service counts each and every stop that a mobile post office makes as a branch? A single vehicle travelling to a village for half a day each week or every two weeks would class each stop as a branch, which is where the figure of 11,500 branches comes from.
Kelly Tolhurst
I recognise some of the concerns about mobile branches that the hon. Gentleman raises. I can assure him that I am moving on to it, and obviously I have had the opportunity to listen to hon. Members this afternoon. I am sure hon. Members will agree that we do not want to go back to the days when we saw over 7,000 post offices shut, as was unfortunately the case under the previous Labour Government.
The post offices meet and exceed all the Government’s accessibility targets at the national level. Government investment in the network enabled the modernisation of more than 7,500 branches, adding more than 200,000 opening hours per week and establishing the Post Office as the largest Sunday trading network.
The Post Office’s agreement with high street banks enables personal and business banking in all branches, providing vital access to cash and banking services to consumers, businesses and local economies as bank branches continue to close. It is right to say that the agreement held with the Post Office and banks benefits our communities, which, as the Minister responsible I have made very clear to Post Office Ltd, to my colleagues in the Treasury and to the financial institutions that I have spoken to. The Post Office is providing a vital service to our constituents, and it should be remunerated for that—in doing so, hopefully that will ensure that our postmasters are also remunerated correctly for the service they provide to our constituents.
Gill Furniss
The Minister talks about banking services, and I would like to bring her back to a point made earlier. When post offices supply ATMs—clearly when banks close down, ATMs often just disappear from the high street or village—the rental is so much that they lose a significant amount of money. Does the Minister want to put that right in order to incentivise keeping ATMs in post offices so that they are available to all our communities?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say the loss of banks and access to cash has been a concern for our constituents and high streets. To individual MPs who represent a constituency where they feel that their post office is in a position to add an ATM—it is not always possible—as the Government representative I will always feed in specific issues that relate to individual constituencies or branches where we can improve services. I put that offer out there. Give me the details and I will always follow it up.
Gill Furniss
The Minister has been given the details today—they will be in Hansard. Postmasters see that they are subsidising the ATM, which just seems wrong to me. I ask the Minister to go back and review that, and to look at finding some way that she can compensate sub-postmasters for that service.
Kelly Tolhurst
I have heard what the hon. Lady has said today, and I will go away and look it. Every post office operates differently throughout the country. There is not a standard rule for all branches, but I will continue to look at the issues that have been highlighted. I care as much about our post office network as any hon. Member does, and that is not just because I am the Minister in post.
The Post Office’s financial performance has improved significantly, and consequently the Government funding required to sustain the network has drastically decreased and is set to decrease even further in upcoming years. It is the first time in 16 years that the Post Office has made a profit. There was a time back in the early 2000s when the Post Office had a deficit of more than £1 billion. Things have changed, and we are ensuring that we get value for money for the taxpayer while ensuring that we sustain the network.
Marion Fellows
The Minister is talking eloquently about the profits that the Post Office is making, but the people who run smaller post offices—the sub-postmasters —tell me that they cannot live on the new contract. When they have to hand back keys to local post offices, does she think it is right that the Post Office is making profit at the expense of these hard-working individuals?
Kelly Tolhurst
I understand why the hon. Lady has raised concerns about sub-postmasters, and she is absolutely right to do so. Whoever has my role in Government—whichever colour of Government—has a duty to defend the Post Office but also to hold it to account. Since being in post I have challenged the Post Office and will continue to do so. Yes, it is commercially independent and operates within terms. We represent the taxpayer, who is the shareholder and owner of the post offices. It is right that we hold the Post Office to account for decisions and that we exert influence where we can.
Changing consumer behaviour has been a serious challenge for post office and small retailers, including many postmasters, which is why in the autumn Budget we made decisions on business rates to ensure that we helped not only some of our sub-postmasters, but small retail more generally.
There is widespread misunderstanding that franchising is a closure programme that will lead to redundancies and the deterioration of services for consumers, but that is not the case. I appreciate that proposed changes to the delivery of post office services can cause concern in some affected communities, but post office branches are not closing—they are being franchised either on site or by relocating them to other high street locations.
Franchising has been common practice since 1635, when King Charles I issued a proclamation allowing the public to use Royal Mail. The model has endured to this day, and the vast majority—11,300 of our 11,500 post offices—are run successfully as a franchise or on an agency basis with retailers, whether large or small. Delivering post office services as part of a wider retail offer is a proven model that brings benefits to the community.
The hon. Member for Wigan raised concerns about the post office in her constituency, which is included in the 40 that will be taken over by WHSmith. Subject to consultation, WHSmith will take over the running of Wigan’s central post office. Let me be clear that the community in Wigan like other communities across the UK is not losing its post office. It will be relocated to a nearby WHSmith branch, and the services will be more accessible for customers.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the Minister for trying to address some of our concerns, but the community is not being consulted on whether the post office is moved into WHSmith. A consultation is explicitly ruled out in the documents that I have been sent. Although she says that this is technically not a closure, to our community it is. The post office has stood on that site for 134 years. Some of the staff have worked there for decades and offer the sort of service that will not be possible in WHSmith. When she has finished winding up—I appreciate that she needs time to respond to our concerns—will she consider meeting with a group of us to talk this through and consider what we can do to address some of those very strong concerns, which are not being heard at the moment?
Kelly Tolhurst
It is right that Post Office Ltd is holding consultations. I apologise; the hon. Lady said earlier that she had been chucked out of the store and that language of intimidation was used. That is quite an accusation to make, and I would recommend that, if that happens to any Member, they should make Ministers aware so we are able to—
Kelly Tolhurst
Absolutely, but that has not been done prior to today. We will take those things forward. I have met other Members about other issues in their constituencies.
It is right that the Post Office is commercially independent, because that enables us, as the major shareholder, to hold it to account at a ministerial level, and I am always happy to do that. I assure the hon. Lady that the proposed changes would add six hours a week to the Wigan branch’s opening times. She is correct—this goes back to an earlier point—that the ATM will not transfer over to the new site, so I understand her concerns about her constituents relating to that service, which would change in that situation.
Jim McMahon
Post offices are not the same from one street to the next; branches provide very different services. If these are not closures but relocations, is the Minister saying that the services provided by the post offices today will be entirely transferred across to WHSmith, and that there will be no loss of service?
Kelly Tolhurst
The programme of franchising is moving Crown postal services. Our objective is to ensure that, when the post offices are moved, they deliver better services and that constituents have better access to them. Part of the franchising programme is about ensuring we have a post office network for today, which suits the modern retail environment and consumers’ changing habits.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister follow up the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and meet a group of us? I am seriously concerned about the reduced access—not necessarily to the building but to the high street in front of the post office—and the impact on my high street and the local economy. Will she meet us to discuss those detailed issues?
Kelly Tolhurst
As I have said—I thought I was quite clear—I am always willing to meet Members who have issues relating to post offices in their constituencies. I said that earlier. I reiterate that I will listen, hold Post Office Ltd to account and take those things forward. That does not necessarily mean that I will agree with some hon. Members’ positions, and they will not always be achievable, but I will make Members’ cases on their behalf.
The UK visa and immigration biometric enrolment services for the Home Office were available to a mix of 99 directly managed and WHSmith branches nationwide. However, as was mentioned earlier, the Home Office recently awarded that contract to Sopra Steria, which now runs the service in new locations. On the Post Office being in a position to deliver services for our constituents, I will always ensure that we work together to strengthen the services and add value to the services that the Post Office will deliver for the Government.
WHSmith has been operating post offices since 2006 and has proven to be a reliable and dependable presence on the high street. There are some misplaced concerns about the Post Office’s contingency plan should WHSmith go into administration. The latest financial results show that the company’s high street businesses recorded their third-highest profit in more than 15 years despite the well-documented challenges on the UK high street. The Post Office is not complacent; it regularly meets with all franchisees to ensure they are delivering on the terms of their agreements. That is an ongoing process.
I am concerned that we are running out of time, Sir Graham, and I think the hon. Member for Wigan may want to wind up—or I can carry on. Post Office staff at franchise branches will have the opportunity to transfer to new franchises under TUPE employment protection, which means that they will benefit from the same terms. Alternatively, staff can leave with compensation, and there may be opportunities available elsewhere in the network. WHSmith’s post offices are currently performing well, and I have every confidence that the recent deal will help to secure Post Office services on a sustainable, profitable basis in communities across our country.
I hear the concerns about the consultation process, and I have said that I will take them forward with the Post Office. As the Minister, I will not call on Post Office Ltd to stop the franchising process, but I will work with it to ensure that it delivers its business in the best way possible and benefits our communities.
We need a sustainable network. It is not correct that the Post Office owns all the Crown branches—the buildings are not all freehold and some are leasehold. It is right that the taxpayer holds the Post Office to account and, as the Minister, I will do everything in my power to harness opportunities and to increase services in the post offices. There will be many opportunities and, as the high street changes—I am also the Minister with responsibility for the retail sector—I will continue to work with the Post Office to ensure that we are delivering for our communities and that we increase the services that post offices provide.
Lisa Nandy
I thank all the many Members who have turned up today to show the strength of feeling that there is in every corner of this country.
I am grateful to the Minister for sitting through the debate, listening to our concerns and taking on board some of the issues relating to the consultation process, but I probably reflect the view of every Member who has spoken when I say that I am deeply disappointed that she has not agreed to suspend the process. There is a moment now—it will not come again—when we can choose to stop this thing that has failed us and our communities for so long, and to start to change course.
I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet me and a group of my hon. Friends to discuss this matter further. I hope she will continue to reflect on it and that she will think again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered franchising of Crown Post Offices and the effect on high streets and local communities.
Written Statements
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Outer Space Act: (Isle of Man)
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
The Government intend to extend, to the Isle of Man, the provision for a limit to be set on an operator’s liability to indemnify the Government against claims brought for loss or damage arising from regulated space activity.
Under the Outer Space Act 1986 (the OSA), operators are required to indemnify the UK Government for any claims brought to the Government for damage or loss arising from activities regulated under the OSA.
Before 2015, this indemnity had no limit, meaning that operators were fully liable for any damages their activities caused. This unlimited liability was seen by industry as a commercial disadvantage and a provision was included in the Deregulation Act 2015 to amend the OSA, introducing a limit to the operator’s indemnity.
Extending the provision for a limit to be set to the Isle of Man, would have the effect of creating a contingent liability for the UK Government for amounts above the indemnity limit in respect of licences issued under the OSA as extended to the Isle of Man by way of the Outer Space Act 1986 (Isle of Man) Order 1990.
The OSA was applied to the Isle of Man in 1990 and the Government of the Isle of Man has requested that the indemnity limit in the amended OSA is extended to them, so that operators based on the Isle of Man will not be at a disadvantage in comparison with their UK counterparts.
The Government have agreed to extend the indemnity limit to the Isle of Man on the basis that the current letters of agreement that are in place with the Government of the Isle of Man are to be updated and formally exchanged following Parliament’s approval of this contingent liability. The updated letters will set out that the Isle of Man Government will meet any liability incurred as a result of Isle of Man space activity, above any indemnity limit set in a licence, that is not covered by insurance. However, the letters maintain the assurance that a request for any contribution from the Isle of Man Government will not be for a sum large enough to destabilise the Isle of Man economy.
When a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, it is required practice for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
As a matter of record, I will be laying a departmental minute today.
[HCWS1242]
Energy Council: December 2018
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
The Energy Council took place on 19 December 2018. The UK was represented by the Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Katrina Williams.
Communication from the Commission: A Clean Planet for all
Miguel Arias Cañete, Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, introduced the European Commission’s Communication “Clean Planet for all: A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral economy”. It stressed the need to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century, and that the EU was well placed to lead efforts to mitigate climate change.
All member states intervened, and all broadly supported the Commission’s communication. A number supported the Commission’s call for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The importance for businesses and citizens to inform the debate on reducing emissions and for the transition to be realistic was mentioned, as was the need for Europe to reduce its dependency on coal and invest in renewables. The importance of interconnection and the need to take account of energy security and competitiveness was raised. The importance of gas infrastructure was also mentioned.
In its intervention, the UK welcomed the communication and emphasised the urgency of addressing climate change. It pointed out that the UK Government had sought advice from the Committee on Climate Change on long-term targets. It also gave an overview of the action being taken to make the transition to a more flexible and smarter energy system.
Some member states considered nuclear energy to be an important option for decarbonisation, and called for technology neutrality. The UK said that it is important that member states are able to choose from all routes to decarbonisation.
Clean energy package
The presidency reported that it had reached agreement with the European Parliament on all elements of the clean energy package. It noted that the European Parliament and Council had now formally adopted the directive on renewable energy (recast), the regulation on governance of the energy union and the directive on energy efficiency (recast). Publication in the Official Journal was expected on 21 December 2018.
On the regulation on risk preparedness in the electricity sector, the presidency said that the regulation should give member states enough time to develop their plans for responding to risk. Regarding the regulation establishing a European Union Agency for the Co-operation of Energy Regulators (recast), it thought the outcome would allow the agency to function efficiently.
The presidency informed Ministers that in the early hours of the 19 December it had closed the two most complicated files: the regulation on the internal market for electricity (recast) and the directive on common rules for the internal market in electricity (recast). It commented that the deal would allow the internal energy market to operate efficiently and that contracts awarded under capacity mechanisms will be subject to limits on emissions of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, consumers will be able to choose their suppliers freely, and request dynamic price contracts and smart meters.
The Commission, congratulating the presidency, noted that completion of the energy union was one of President Junker’s 10 legislative priorities.
Comments made by individual member states included recognition of the value of national energy and climate plans, but regret about the deal struck on limits on carbon dioxide emissions for contracts awarded under capacity mechanisms, and concern at the difficulties involved in opening up interconnector capacity and in meeting energy efficiency objectives.
Any other business items
The presidency informed the Council about the state of play on the revision of the gas directive. A number of member states, including the UK, called for faster progress and challenged the latest compromise proposals, but others expressed concern about proceeding with the revision.
The presidency updated Ministers on the connecting Europe facility negotiations, saying that it had secured a partial general approach at the Transport Council. It then provided an update on the hydrogen initiative.
The Commission provided an update on the status of marine energy and external energy relations. A number of member states supported the Commission’s calls for more action to make marine technology competitive.
There was a brief discussion on the appointment of the director general for the International Renewable Energy Agency.
Finally, the incoming Romanian presidency presented its work programme, stating its priorities to be formal agreement on the clean energy package, to make progress on the gas directive, the tyre labelling regulation and the mandate for changes to the energy community treaty.
Ministers had an informal discussion over lunch on energy security and external dimensions of energy policy.
[HCWS1241]
Contingent Liability Notification
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I can today confirm that I have laid a Treasury Minute informing the House of the contingent liability that HM Treasury has taken on in authorising the sale of a portfolio of Bradford & Bingley (B&B) and NRAM commercial loans, acquired during the financial crisis under the last Labour Government, to a consortium formed of Arrow Global Ltd and Davidson Kempner European Partners LLP, who are specialist asset buyers.
On this occasion, due to the sensitivities surrounding the commercial negotiation of this sale, it has not been possible to notify Parliament of the particulars of the liability in advance of the transaction documents being signed. The Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and Treasury Committee were notified in confidence ahead of the transaction being agreed.
The contingent liability includes certain market standard time and value capped warranties confirming regulatory, legislative and contractual compliance. In addition, there are further remote fundamental market-standard warranties. The maximum contingent liability arising from all contractual claims is approximately £61 million. The impact of the sale on a selection of fiscal metrics is as follows:
public sector net debt is reduced by £61 million in 2018-19;
public sector net borrowing is increased by a total of £7.9 million by 2022-23;
public sector net liabilities is increased by £30 million in 2018-19; and
public sector net financial liabilities is increased by £30 million in 2018-19.
UKAR will incur an accounting loss of £30 million on the transaction in 2018-19. UKAR is expected to make an overall profit in 2018-19. The net present value of the assets if held to maturity was estimated by UKAR’s advisors using Green Book assumptions. UKAR received less than this estimated hold value in exchange for the assets. The Government should not be a long-term owner of financial sector assets and it is right that these assets should be returned to private hands.
I will update the House of any further changes to B&B and NRAM as necessary.
[HCWS1240]
Grand Committee
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Free Schools: Educational Standards
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open this debate on free schools and the programme of this Government and the previous coalition Government, which I think I can safely say has been an unqualified success. It has been a success on many fronts: on quality and on bringing capacity, choice, innovation and competition to the system.
I will deal firstly with quality. Some 32% of free schools inspected have been judged outstanding by Ofsted, compared with 21% of all other schools, and 86% have been judged good or outstanding. This is truly remarkable, considering how early in their life free schools are inspected, when they have little if any test data to show and Ofsted inspectors generally are not rushing to award outstanding ratings to schools with few or no results. It shows that the pupils in these schools must be making good progress and that the schools must be demonstrating this to Ofsted.
It really is striking that free schools are 50% more likely to be rated outstanding than other schools. Last year, for the fourth year running, primary free schools were among the top-performing schools in the year 1 phonics screening check and key stage 1 SATs tests. Last year, for the second year running, secondary free schools were the highest performers at Progress 8, with an average score of +0.24. Indeed, four out of the top 10 performers at Progress 8 last year were free schools: Dixons Trinity Bradford, Eden Girls, William Perkin Church of England and Tauheedul Boys. At key stage 5 we have the London Academy of Excellence in Newham sending many of its pupils to Russell group universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, clearly raising the game of other sixth forms in Newham. At King’s maths school last year, 99% of students achieved an A or A* in maths A-level.
On capacity, 442 free schools have been opened, providing nearly 300,000 new school places. Adding those approved and in the pipeline but not yet open brings the total to more than 700. Half have been opened in the 30% most deprived areas of the country, and 83% address a need for places.
I must pay tribute to the free schools team at the Department for Education, headed by Mela Watts. You do not normally become a civil servant expecting to find yourself as a kind of venture capitalist opining on the merits of new organisations, but the people in the free schools team have adapted brilliantly to that challenge. I must also recognise the very significant role now played by regional schools commissioners in assessing free schools proposals.
On costs, free schools have been brought in at a cost one-third lower than under the preceding Labour Government’s BSF programme. Finding sites for these schools obviously is not easy, particularly in inner cities. I must also pay tribute in this regard to the Department for Education’s property arm, LocatED, very ably run by Lara Newman, which has been particularly effective and imaginative in this regard. Free schools have been opened not just in former offices and factories but in former police stations, a church, on top of a supermarket and in one case in a former fire station. I remember visiting that school. The planners had insisted for some reason that the pole that the firemen used to slide down had to be kept in place. I was particularly upset that, for health and safety reasons, I was not allowed to slide down it. I am delighted that 34 specialist free schools have been opened and 41 AP free schools, with more to come.
On innovation, the Sutton Trust has found that one-third of free schools have been shown to demonstrate a genuinely innovative approach to ethos and curriculum. Unfortunately, a limited number of schools have engaged with the knowledge-rich curriculum and teacher-led instructional approach now shown to be the most successful compared with the now debunked more progressive approach followed in this country for the past 30 years. As that approach is favoured by the Government, with hindsight it might have been better if the Government had been more prescriptive in this regard and aligned their policies more. I exhort them to do that in future.
However, there has been innovation in other areas. Dixons Trinity Academy, Bradford, follows Carol Dweck’s “growth mindset” approach. There is innovation at the four maths schools at King’s College London, in Exeter, in Cambridge and at the University of Liverpool—the latter two are in pre-opening—at Saracens High School, Barnet, which is supported by Saracens rugby club, and at Bolder Academy in Hounslow, which has teamed up with Sky—to name but a few.
Of course, the free schools programme has provided much-needed competition for the state school sector, as has the academy programme. All monopolies suffer from a lack of competition, which breeds inefficiency and complacency—a point that Marxists always seem to miss when they are keen to create yet more monopolies. The free schools programme has been particularly effective at providing competition and creating an environment in which a rising tide lifts all boats.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to my right honourable friend Michael Gove, my noble friend Lord Hill—I see that he is in his place—who started the programme, my noble friend the Minister, who continues it so well, and my noble friend Lord Baker, who has been involved in it so much. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy—I see that he is also in his place—who invented the programme with his 2005 paper, More Good School Places. I particularly want to mention the teachers, school leaders, MATs and sponsors who have supported the programme since its early days, when it often faced significant opposition. In this regard, I will mention in particular Katharine Birbalsingh at Michaela Community School, Ed Vainker at Reach Academy, Feltham, Hamid Patel at Tauheedul and Luke Sparkes at Dixons Trinity, Bradford—but there are many more. Those of us who have been involved in starting new ventures, organisations and schools know how challenging it is; we should be extremely grateful to these social entrepreneurs and pioneers.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I cannot speak in the debate, unfortunately, as I must be in the Chamber because I will be the last speaker on Monday night. I want to place on record the educational world’s thanks to my noble friend Lord Nash for his enthusiasm in creating the free schools movement. Without him and my noble friend Lord Hill, we would not be where we are.
I was a bit disappointed that my noble friend Lord Nash did not mention UTCs, which are a form of free school too. They are funded in the same way, are independent of local authorities and have some of the best results in the country, which we are proud of. We produce 30% of apprentices compared with 7% from other sectors, and 47% of our students go to university, three-quarters of whom do so to study STEM subjects. My noble friend supported us strongly in that, for which I thank him. Indeed, the UTC in Pimlico will join my noble friend’s MAT in Westminster later this year.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for bringing the debate to the House. It is good to have an education debate; we do not get as many of them these days as we used to.
I want to put on record the noble Lord’s commitment to the policy. I know that he believes in it and has put a lot of his own resources, effort and ability into trying to make it work. I will say that up front because in the next six and a half minutes, I will not support totally what he said. I also join him in thanking the schools he mentioned that have been successful in the free schools movement. We should welcome every good new school that we can get into the system. We cannot be against more good schools. That is the starting point. However, beyond that, I did not recognise the picture of this policy drawn by the noble Lord.
The title of the debate gives away the problem we have with the Government’s approach to free schools. It invites us to celebrate free schools’ contribution to raising standards. We owe it to the nation to do more than that. We owe it to our nation and its children to be more open-minded, not blind to the weaknesses and faults as well. The problem with free schools is that the Government have been too committed to them from the start and have lost any ability to be neutral or objective about their progress. While I acknowledge the success that there has been, I want to raise the other things that have happened in the free school movement.
Let us be clear what we are talking about when it comes to free schools. They do not exist in statute; they are essentially academies—no more, no less; there is no more legislation. They were set up to bring in new providers and parent-led schools, to increase competition and to promote innovation. Over the years of their existence, not one of them has delivered on the ambitions of their proposers at the start of the free school journey.
Increasingly, new providers are existing MATs. In the past three years of the policy, more than 80% of free schools have been just expansions of existing multi-academy trust schools. That has been at the expense of parent-led schools. The number of parents opening schools has dropped drastically during the past three years. As for competition, free schools will become the default model for the schools system in England. If you open a new school, it will have to be a free school. It is going to be a monopoly; it is a default system; it is not somebody trying to change the system but what every new school will be.
Belonging to an organisation that sponsored free schools, my experience of them is that what we have now is the most tightly controlled, most measured, most weighed, most monitored, most structured and most supported set of schools in the whole schools system. If anyone here has sat around a table discussing the progress of a free school, they will know that you have educational advisers from the DfE, people from the regional schools commission, people from the funding agency and, in the background, people from the New Schools Network. There are more paid bureaucrats around that table than in any other educational situation. I do not mind that. If that is the way to bring about success, let us go for it—but let us not pretend that these schools are free; let us not pretend that they are being allowed to get on with it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has just said, perhaps the Government should have been even more prescriptive. Gone is the autonomy, gone is the “stand-alone”, gone is the “get on with it”, gone is the “get bureaucracy out of it” and gone is the idea that the centre does not know best; what we have is that the centre apparently does know best and will do what it takes to make sure that those schools thrive. That is fair enough if that is what you are promoting—but for heaven’s sake change the title. These are not free schools, and they are no badge for anyone who believes that schools should be autonomous.
The schools are not without failures—every type of school structure will have them. Eighty-six projects did not start and we spent millions of pounds on them. Forty-two projects that started have closed—we have wasted money—and 15 schools that started have been re-brokered. If this is what we have to spend to find out what works in education, I could defend that, but what I find indefensible is somebody standing up in a debate about free schools and not acknowledging that failure. We need to learn from that failure; we need to know why the Government are spending 19% above value rates for properties in London; we need to know why £8 million was spent on a site for a UTC that never opened; we need to know why more than 50 free schools have closed and kids have had to be sent outside. Again, there is no open analysis or realistic evaluation of the progress that has been made. I shall not go through the costs, but if any local authority had spent so much money to so little effect, as central government has done on some aspects of its free schools, the commissioners would have been through the door. There is no arguing against that.
The problem is that the Government have been blinded to the weaknesses of free schools. They set them up not as a pilot to see what worked, or as an open approach where they asked, “What can we learn to put to the rest of the system?”; they set them up determined that this should be the dominant structure within the English schools system, and the evidence is not there. Where it has been good, it has presented an ideal situation for some schools—a small number of schools —to be incredibly imaginative, and every system needs a place for incubators where innovation can work. I think free schools have offered that to some extent, but they have not proven themselves as a model that should be rolled out so that every school is a free school.
Quite simply, for far too long politicians throughout all parties and generations have looked at school structure as a way of guaranteeing success for every child and every school, and it does not work. It did not work with comprehensives, it did not work with academies, it does not work with free schools and it will not work with any one structure. What works is good leaders, strong teachers, good support and effective governance, and there is nothing about free schools that guarantees more of that. If we are intent on delivering high standards for every child, let us look honestly and openly at what in all parts of our system brings the best leadership, the strongest teaching, the most effective governance and the most support from parents. If we get that right, we will do it. Some of that has been exhibited in some free schools, but it has also been exhibited in a lot of academies, comprehensive schools and local authority maintained schools. That is the problem. Free schools are an interesting experiment but they are not a blueprint for the future of our school system.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, I first express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Nash for calling this debate. I think it is fair to say that nobody in government or politics has done more than him to support the free school movement both as a sponsor who has been known to put his time, effort and money into opening schools and during his four years as the responsible Minister. His positive impact on children’s outcomes in this country has been profound.
With just two speakers so far, there has already been much discussion of the merits or otherwise of free schools. As a founder and trustee of Floreat Education, which operates two primary free schools, it is probably fairly obvious where my loyalty lies, but I want to use this debate to revisit the reasons that the Conservative Party proposed and implemented the free schools programme in the first place, because I believe that it is against those intentions that the programme should be judged.
Having said that, there is another interest I have to declare, which my noble friend has already alluded to. Success has many parents, but I think it is fair to say that the Minister and I have particular reason to claim parentage of the free schools movement. As he said, the story began with the publication of a report for Policy Exchange in December 2005, authored by myself and Charlotte Leslie: More Good School Places. In producing that paper, we were strongly supported by one our trustees at the think tank—plain Theodore Agnew, as he was in those days. The purpose of that report was to suggest changes to the schools system in England in order to raise standards. Its analysis relied on the emerging literature on school choice and competition from the US, Sweden, the Netherlands and elsewhere.
I will not detain your Lordships with all the specific proposals in the report. Some of them were subsequently adopted by the Conservative Party when I became director of policy, including an early version of the pupil premium—the great cause of common interest with the Liberal Democrats and a foundation stone of the coalition education policy. Another proposal was to create a non-LEA-based route to setting up new schools. Others, such as locally elected pupil advocates, were not accepted. I believe that the key insight of that report still stands, which is that it is the Government’s job to help to create more good school places. The DfE is still using that language 13 years after we first coined it.
So how does the free school programme measure up? In that report we proposed that excellence should be achieved through two means. First, there needed to be an expansion of the number of good school places, making it radically easier for new providers to come into the state sector to open schools, challenge underperformance and bring new ideas.
Secondly, we proposed the creation of what we called an equity challenge: making sure that in this system those who had the least—who had been failed by schools—were given extra support, including extra financial support, to make them attractive to successful schools, and had the resources needed to address their educational challenges. Expansion challenge and equity challenge were, we posited, the way to achieve excellence. It is against those yardsticks that we should judge the success of the programme.
On the expansion front, the evidence is incontrovertible. The preceding Labour Government had inexplicably allowed 1,500 schools in England to close between 2001 and 2010, despite the birth rate increasing by 128,000 per year over that period. The Government have opened—as my noble friend mentioned—442 new free schools, which will provide 250,000 places when full, and 261 further free schools have been approved but are not yet open. According to the New Schools Network, 83% of open free schools have been opened in areas of recognised need—because of a shortage of local places, a lack of choice, or poor local standards.
Expansion is not just a numbers game: it is also about innovation and choice. The free schools programme has allowed the creation of an extraordinary range of schools—schools such as Floreat and the University of Birmingham School that have a major focus on character development; schools such as Michaela and the West London Free School trust that have pioneered a modern approach to knowledge-based learning—as well as a range of other exciting provisions, including new boarding schools such as Holyport College and Dixons Music Primary. In a way, that is the greatest achievement of the programme: to have unleashed—to take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—dynamic leadership, followed new ideas, challenged the status quo and delivered higher standards.
The free schools programme also measures up well on the equity challenge. According to the New Schools Network, free schools are three times more likely to be set up in the most deprived areas of the country than in the least deprived, and are more than averagely likely to attract pupils with a first language other than English. There is more work to do to attract the least well-off pupils to the schools, but from first-hand experience I can tell the Committee that it becomes much easier to attract those families when a school is up and running, because they are often very risk-averse, wanting to stick with the known rather than taking on the risk of being a pioneering group of parents. Once that risk has gone—once the school is established—the number of children on free school meals tends to go up.
The result of getting both expansion and equity challenges right is excellence, of which my noble friend outlined many examples in free schools: they are more likely to be judged as outstanding by Ofsted, the average secondary free school Progress 8 score is the joint highest of all school types, and there are many other examples. These considerable achievements will only increase over time.
As we look to the future, however, it is important not to be Panglossian, and to accept that the programme needs to evolve and improve further. As my noble friend Lord Nash said, the DfE has sometimes struggled to find the right sites for free schools. Indeed, the lack of a permanent site forced the deeply regrettable closure of the Floreat school in Brentford, a heart-breaking event for pupils, parents and staff. The creation of the LocatED group within the DfE should stop this happening again, but can the Minister reassure the Committee on that?
Furthermore, while there has undoubtedly been a need to generate more school places to meet a rapidly growing school-age population, the birth rate is now falling. For me, that means that the programme should shift back towards creating new provision in areas of underperformance or lack of choice. There was an imperative to create seats for the many extra bums, but that tended to favour large incumbent academy trusts. Does the Minister agree with me—and with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—that the time is right to recapture some of the dynamism of the original programme, which was more supportive of teacher-led start-ups?
Finally, many open free schools now find themselves in single-academy trusts or small multi-academy trusts. Such organisations, which often have only a few year groups, can be vulnerable to events outside their control, and there is a need to bring these schools together into larger, less fragile groups. Will the Minister say what the DfE is doing to make this happen?
To conclude, the free schools programme has been highly positive for children in our country. Combined with other reforms, such as the creation of a much more rigorous curriculum and exam system, it is leading to consistently better educational outcomes. An expansion of choice, combined with a focus on equity, has indeed led to excellence, with hundreds of thousands of pupils benefiting. That is a wonderful achievement, of which we should all be proud.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when I looked at this debate I expected that we would discover most of the enthusiasm and intellectual drive behind this movement being expressed in this Room. I have not been disappointed. We seem to have everybody who knows anything about the subject here. For the rest of us, finding out exactly where the people who are involved in the free schools movement think it should go will be one of the lessons we will take away.
However, I am afraid I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. Indeed, she said much of what I was going to say—and, irritatingly, in a very good style—about the problems. The first is that if we have a lot of enthusiasm, where is the control? As the noble Baroness pointed out, more than 50 schools are closing. I thought, from the House of Lords Library briefing, that 29 free schools had closed in the past three years. We have a fairly high casualty rate. This must call to everyone’s attention that this is not a panacea that will be universally successful and guarantee success.
Once again the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, beat me to it: the fact of the matter is that free schools are a way of creating more academies that has been created by academy trusts. The problems of the academies are effectively going to the free schools. They are one and the same beast. It might be a different way of creating them, but they are the same thing. They are a movement. They have the same types of criteria, so the creature should be seen as one whole. Can we get an idea of how we will look at this?
I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, discussed regional schools commissioners. Indeed, I think it was in this Room that we first discussed some things about them. It might be a good idea to find out exactly what they think they will be doing to give a more strategic focus. The days of the innovative, wonderful parent and teacher-led start-up are probably behind us—or they will occur only very infrequently. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, shakes his head, but it certainly has not been the fashion of late. He now nods his head. I wonder how Hansard will deal with that. We must look at what is happening now as a good example of where it might go.
I discovered when looking through some of the briefing about what academies are doing, if we can accept that this is a way into the academy movement, whether independently or as part of it, that we have a juicy little problem of off-rolling when it comes to taking exams. I am afraid that a name that stuck out when I was reading through an article sent to me by the Guardian is the Hewett school in Norwich. I discovered only today—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for letting his office know only today—that it is an academy in the trust that he helped to run, or I think was the head of. In one year it lost 20% of its pupils before they took exams. The Hewett school always strikes me because it is the school that I went to, as did my siblings. It is a very big school. It went through days when I was there of being the big comprehensive success story, with a huge sixth form, to special measures. What can go up can go down under any system. I hope that the free schools remember that. Sometimes things can go horribly wrong.
Are the schools commissioners going to look at and check off-rolling to stop the gaming of the system? If they are not, we will miss the group that we should be concentrating on: those who are difficult to educate, who probably do not have the best parental backing, and those with a very high number of hidden special educational needs, which is quite normal in those who fail. Will we look at this? Will the schools commissioners take a lead in this, or are we looking at somewhere else? Will it be Ofsted—although Ofsted cannot look at somebody who is not there? Will we make sure that academies, free schools and everybody else take full responsibility for those people they have recruited and who go through the system? If we are not going to, there is a fundamental flaw here in the way we are being organised. We must address this vigorously.
We have a system which may well have benefits, in a Panglossian way, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, would have it: everything for the best in the best of all possible worlds. If the sun is always behind you and everything is going well, any system will do well. If you recruit the right parents and the right students, you will succeed. But when things go wrong is the test of any system: how do you handle the problems and the mistakes? I hope we get a good answer here, because if that is not built into this system, it does not really matter what you do with your successes—your failures will still mar it, probably to the extent that it will have to be got rid of in the end.
Lord Harris of Peckham (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all agree that every child in this country deserves the best education possible. Before I speak about free schools, I will say a few words about our 47 schools, which include 13 free schools.
Almost one in 40 children in London now attends a Harris Academy and 95% of our secondary schools are outstanding, against the national average of 23%. With the exception of two schools, all were either failing or in special measures when we took them over. We have four world-class schools: in Thurrock, Greenwich, Crystal Palace and Battersea. Battersea was the worst school in Wandsworth only four years ago and last year the Progress 8 score made it the best school in Wandsworth and the fourth best in the country. Last year’s results for primaries were: national average 64%, Harris 79%. The average proportion going to a Russell Group university was 12%; ours was 24%. Some 90% of our students now attend university—an amazing number.
Before I continue, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who started the CTCs. The first school he ever gave us was Crystal Palace, when it had a pass rate of 9%. Today it is world-class. We are changing the lives of many children in that area over the years. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and Michael Gove for continuing to give us failing schools and free schools that we can make successful to give the children of this country a better education.
Turning to the subject of the debate—free schools—I think the idea was brilliant. It was what the country needed to put new schools into difficult areas. We have 13 free schools. Seven are outstanding, two are good and four have not been inspected yet as they have not been open long enough. With most of these schools, the parents have asked us to run them.
Harris Westminster, a sixth-form free school, has had amazing results. It is a school for bright children from working-class homes. More than 45% of them are on free school meals and free transport. Last year, 16 students got to Oxford or Cambridge, eight of them black—your Lordships will remember the report by David Lammy in 2015 which said that there was not one black student going to Oxford or Cambridge—and 70% of these children got to a Russell group university. This year 64 students are having interviews for places at Oxford or Cambridge, providing they achieve their results. The sixth-form college now has more than 600 students, which is more than Westminster School itself. I have to say that Westminster School has been very helpful in allowing us to use some of its facilities. This school is changing the lives of many students and giving them a better future.
Our outstanding free schools include: Harris Academy Tottenham, which has primary, secondary and a sixth form and which, after the building that has been going on for the past four years, got outstanding; Harris Invictus Academy Croydon, Harris Primary Academy Shortlands and Harris Primary Academy Beckenham, which all got outstanding; Harris Westminster, which I mentioned; and Harris Primary Academy East Dulwich. The Mayflower Primary School is going to be one of the biggest primary schools in the country with more than 1,000 students. It was also in Portakabins for two years.
One of our schools, Harris Aspire Academy, which has been graded as good, is for children who have been excluded from not only Harris schools but other schools in the area. Inspectors said this school has “outstanding leadership” and “outstanding teaching”, and the only reason why they could mark it as only good was that the attendance was 93%—which is excellent for a school with such difficult students. They said that the school would be marked outstanding if attendance were 96%.
I believe that free schools have helped the Harris Federation to give children a better chance in life, and our schools are now four and a half times oversubscribed. The only thing I would like the Minister to look at is the funding of them at the beginning. It is very difficult when you have a school with the potential to have 1,000 or 1,200 students, and you start off with 180; on average, you would need £900,000 to keep the school going. That is very difficult as you cannot make it break even until the second or third year. However, what has happened with them has been great. It has given free schools the opportunity to put in new buildings which will be there for the next 30 to 40 years and I am really in favour of that.
Before finishing, I would like to thank Sir Dan Moynihan and his team for all their hard work in making these schools so successful and changing the lives of many children. I recommend that the department and the Minister continue the free schools programme. We have three more to open next year.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, I find it so refreshing to hear input from real-life, personal experience rather than simply a Library brief or desktop research. I congratulate my noble friend, who is my good friend.
“Uncertainty” is a word we hear constantly these days, but noble Lords will not hear it from me; I would most certainly never use it in the context of free schools. I could not be more certain and confident of the real need for free schools and their positive impact on our society. However, I recognise that there are understandably some weaknesses, faults and failures in the movement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, passionately told us about them earlier. We can and must learn from them, and we ignore them at our peril.
On the topic of certainty, I am equally certain that I could have derived more benefit from my time at school. In recent years, I have come to know schools and their vital role in society rather well through my work with two charities, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and The Outward Bound Trust. I chair one and I am deputy patron of the other. The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, in particular, has had to respond to the squeeze on local authority funding by building direct links with schools. Today, it has more than 3,000 directly licensed organisations providing access to its life-changing awards. Most of these directly licensed organisations are schools, and they cover the full range from local authority controlled schools to free schools, academies and ancient public schools. All of these can be good schools of course—there is no doubt about that—and surely all that should matter to any of us is that as many of our children and grandchildren and the nation’s children as possible are receiving the very best education that we can provide. So on this occasion perhaps we should put ideology to one side and just ask whether free schools are helping to deliver the desired result. I think we can unequivocally say that they are. In fact, in my considered view, free schools are already shining very brightly indeed.
Disruption is critically bad news if you are running Heathrow Airport, Gatwick Airport, a railway or a logistics business, but it is always a massive positive everywhere else. I know from my pretty wide business life that competition is seldom welcomed, rarely embraced and quite often painful in the extreme but, objectively, it is a good thing. It is good news because it motivates and encourages improvements in quality and services and most certainly pushes up standards across the board in schools. That stimulus for all to do better is just one spin-off benefit of a new free school. They undoubtedly shake up and wake up the mediocre in education. They can also satisfy parental demand in areas where existing school provision is poor or standards are persistently low, and they have a proven ability to be nurturing as well as focused on high academic achievement.
A friend of mine drew my attention to an exceptional free school in one of the most deprived areas of Newcastle upon Tyne, West Newcastle Academy. It is doing an amazing job of raising standards and empowering staff, parents and pupils alike in a community where excellence and aspiration has to date been in pretty short supply. That free school is also exceptional in another respect: its geographical location. As we know, the overwhelming majority of free schools that have opened are in London and the south-east. The people of the north—that remote other country where workers make things and also voted leave in large numbers—deserve to have the same chances and opportunity as Londoners to send their children to schools that enable them to maximise their potential and flourish.
Wherever there is pressure on existing schools—and let no one underestimate the stress that oversubscribed schools can create for parents and pupils alike—or where established schools are underperforming, let us please encourage the creation of new free schools to provide choice and opportunity, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. These new openings should never be considered or seen as a threat to existing schools—any more than a new furniture store on the opposite side of the high street or retail park spelt doom for the businesses I used to own and run—rather, as a spur to work even harder to deliver the best results. By the best results, I do not mean just hearing impressive parental feedback or achieving stellar examination rates, but teaching social skills and giving kids the resilience and self-confidence they need to become employable and to be good parents and responsible citizens. If we are to fulfil the potential of our country, every single child must have the opportunity to go to a great local school. Free schools can help increase the numbers who have that opportunity, regardless of their background, where they live or their parents’ income. We should enthusiastically and unstintingly support their expansion across the country in the interest of all our children.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for making this important debate possible, for his work in this area over so many years and for opening this debate in the way he did. I also pay tribute to him as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Looked After Children and Care Leavers, and for his most important work when he took through the Children and Families Bill five years ago. He introduced or accepted an amendment—I think he introduced it—that placed a duty on local authorities to allow young people in local authority foster care to remain with their foster carers until the age of 21, where both the young person and the foster carer wished to do so. It is very moving when I speak to foster parents who are so pleased they can keep on looking after their young person until the age of 20 or 21. Scotland and Wales then chose to follow. At the time there was a clamour that the same thing was not done for children’s homes, but in his report on children’s homes last year, Sir Martin Narey introduced the notion of staying close, so that now children’s homes are developing a similar model to allow their care leavers to stay close to their home. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for this important work.
I declare my interest as a trustee of a mental health service for adolescents and the of the child welfare charity, the Michael Sieff Foundation. I join in celebrating the academic attainments achieved at so many academies, particularly the academy that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, kindly arranged for me to visit: the King Solomon Academy in Paddington Green, north central London. It is part of Ark Schools, a multi-academy trust. It is in an area of high deprivation, with many families living on low incomes, many immigrant families and many families living in social housing. The King Solomon Academy has a focus on depth before breadth, with a strong emphasis on English and mathematics. In December 2008 and December 2009, Ofsted rated the school as outstanding. In 2015, the school was rated as the best non-selective secondary school in England, according to the Department of Education GCSE league tables. When one walks in the door, one reads an inscription on the wall along the lines of, “We expect all our pupils to go to university”. It is an academy, not a free school. I am afraid I can speak only from my experience, but I hope it is helpful to the discussion.
When I visited, I found the 28 year-old Head, Max Haimendorf, a graduate of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, enthusiastic and inspiring; he was one of the first Teach First programme cohort. An acquaintance spoke to me of the extraordinary dedication of one of the school’s teachers, whom he knew well and said that sitting observing an English class, he saw that all the pupils were concentrating on what their teacher was saying and that as they listened, they clicked their fingers, an expression of their excitement at learning, encouraged by their calm and assured teacher. In a science class, he spoke to one of the BAME pupils, a girl—by far the majority of pupils were from that background. She spoke of how much she enjoyed her education, how her family were thoroughly involved by the school in her education and of the extra-curricular activities that she enjoyed: the theatrical performances and the symphony orchestra. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for that that experience, which stays with me vividly to this day.
However, when we speak about educational attainment in free schools, we must also ask ourselves at what cost this comes to children who are not in academies or free schools, or who do not fit in with the culture of these schools. I think this has come up in previous discussions. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, talk so strongly about ensuring equity in these schools. Most of the young people going to an academy were the children of immigrants who had great aspirations for them, but what about those children who are not from those kinds of backgrounds? What about Traveller children, looked-after children and children from families who have been failed by the system for generations? Professor Sonia Blandford, chief executive of the charity Achievement for All, points out that about one-fifth of our children are being left behind. She grew up in a low-income family and she was the first person in her family to go to university. Her charity is widely respected and effectively supports many schools. She points out that free schools cost the Government £57,000 per annum per pupil with any form of needs, which is about £30,000 above other pupils. That seems an extraordinary difference. I am sorry not to have written to the Minister, but maybe he can confirm or challenge that figure.
We know that high-quality early years education provides an invaluable boost for vulnerable children, yet the best provision, maintained nursery schools—schools that receive supplementary funding because they provide a qualified head teacher, qualified teachers and a qualified special educational needs co-ordinator—are struggling to find the £59 million a year they need to survive. It appears that there are favourite children in the system, a favourite model, and others may be losing out as a consequence. I urge the Government to be more even-handed in their approach and to take the following steps to make our education system more inclusive and effective.
First, I urge both the Government and the Opposition to avoid any further revolution in our education system. Revolutions are always tempting but they seldom deliver on their promise. They tend to detract from the most important tasks. Secondly, I urge the Minister to embrace the most important tasks, which are recruiting and retaining the best people in education, offering excellent continual professional development to those in posts and ensuring the most disadvantaged children and young people benefit from the best teachers. We hear that it is often the case in the new free schools that those who are the most challenged and disadvantaged are getting the best experience. I know there are currently funding pressures, but it is troubling to read that last year continuing professional development funding in both secondary and primary schools significantly reduced.
Thirdly—and relatedly—the Government should make Ofsted less punitive and more supportive in its approach. The best-performing nations do not have an inspection system as punitive as ours; they have more supportive ones. I ask the Minister to look at Lucy Crehan’s book on education and the highest performing PISA nations. I warmly welcome the commitment from the previous Education Secretary to reform Ofsted, and I hope that is being sustained. The anxiety that Ofsted currently creates drives good teachers and head teachers out of the profession. They are put off by a limited regime where the primary focus of the school is Ofsted, not the children or the best way to help them learn.
My time is up. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these concerns and to join in celebrating the achievements of the free schools—which I recognise—but there are complexities in this area. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Nash for providing the opportunity for this Committee to draw attention to the contribution that free schools have made to improving educational standards. Providing an excellent education for all children and ensuring that no child, regardless of their background, is left behind has been a key driver of educational reform by successive Governments in this country, and free schools have made a significant contribution to it. I pay tribute to my noble friend’s long-term and tireless commitment to creating opportunity in education. I have personally witnessed it since 2006, and I am sure that it goes back even further.
We know that education can provide a pivotal impact on a child’s life chances and opportunities. For example, official statistics show that: 52% of male offenders and 72% of female offenders have no qualifications whatever; one-third of young people who have been excluded from school have been involved with drug dealing, as well as being exposed to growing trends of knife crime; and fewer than half of those with no qualifications were in employment, compared with eight in 10 of those with at least one qualification. Educational failure perpetuates the cycle of disadvantage, preventing generation after generation reaching their full potential.
When I was the executive director of the Centre for Social Justice, we documented the impact of this failure of education in our ground-breaking report Breakdown Britain. We identified significant educational inequality, which showed that emphasising average attainment was masking very real failures at the bottom of the system, where disadvantaged children were falling further and further behind. In 2006, children from disadvantaged backgrounds were five times more likely to fail academically than their peers. Most importantly, pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds were often not being given the opportunity to succeed, as evidence showed that schools with high numbers of pupils on free school meals were more likely to be considered underperforming by Ofsted. The budget uplift in education in the 10 years prior to 2006 was not helping those from disadvantaged backgrounds work their way to a brighter future, and 30,000 children were leaving school with no qualifications or skills and were not attending schools that were good enough to give them the chance to change that.
In the recommendations to tackle this which were included in the follow-up report Breakthrough Britain, we advocated pioneer schools, which were inspired by the successful US charter schools. The pioneer school recommendation was deeply influenced by my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy’s report More Good School Places. The aim was to provide innovative solutions to deeply entrenched educational failure by setting up new schools led in a way that gave them the flexibility to make the best decisions for children in their local area.
Since then, the rollout of free schools has dramatically increased the number of available school places, particularly in the most deprived areas of the country, improving the life chances of a large number of children. Nearly half of the schools that have opened are in the most deprived areas of the country, as we have heard. The schools that have opened provide 290,000 school places, overwhelmingly in areas where more school places were needed. There are 266 schools approved to open, which will add further to this capacity. They are offering genuine life opportunities for children to fulfil their potential and flourish in a good school. Free schools have an excellent Ofsted record, as we have heard, with 86% of them rated good or outstanding, and many are among the best-performing schools in the country. Unsurprisingly, they have been incredibly popular with parents and attract more first-preference applications than any other type of school.
Free schools have ensured that more and more children have a chance to succeed. They are the highest performers at Progress 8, and results are above the national average at GCSE and A-level. The mission to close the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers is ongoing, but the gap is closing. The figures in the disadvantage gap index show that this gap has shrunk by 13% since 2011. Since we wrote the Breakdown Britain report, the gap in some areas has shrunk by as much as 30% in key stage 2.
Disadvantaged pupils do better at free schools than at any other type of school, and schools often have the freedom to help address some of the complex social challenges unique to their locality. For example, in areas with high child poverty and youth crime, schools have been able to extend the school day to provide a safe place for further learning and extracurricular activities. For every single one of these statistics, there is a child who has been given the opportunity to thrive.
However, there is still more to do to ensure that this gap continues to close and that children from disadvantaged groups continue to get access to a quality education. For that reason, I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on the plans he has for ensuring that more disadvantaged children can benefit from free schools. More pupils are now in good schools than in 2010, but there are still 1 million children attending struggling schools, who deserve the opportunity to fulfil their potential, too. As more free schools open over the coming years, the Government should be ensuring that all children, especially the most disadvantaged, can take advantage of the opportunities that they present.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Nash on calling this debate and I pay tribute to his long-standing contribution to improving educational outcomes for all. He has shown a passionate commitment to free schools, both as an Education Minister and through his work with Future, the multi-academy trust.
Free schools are the single most successful group of state schools. They outperform their competitors by almost every measure. They are driving up educational standards, exposing poor performance, improving access and choice, and pioneering innovation. Most importantly, they are delivering for pupils, especially the most disadvantaged.
Let us look at the evidence. Free schools have created 290,000 new places, in schools that were, on average, 29% cheaper to build than previous school-building programmes. Some 31% of free schools are rated as outstanding by Ofsted, compared with 21% of other schools. As we have heard, they are three times more likely to be located in the most deprived areas of the country than the least deprived. They are more likely to be oversubscribed than any other type of state school. More places at lower cost, higher performing, serving the most deserving and in high demand from parents—so it is strange that the shadow Secretary of State has said that Labour would end the free schools programme because:
“They neither improve standards, nor empower staff or parents”.
On standards, free schools outperform other state schools at key stage 1 and get better A-level and GCSE results. They attract more first-preference choices from parents than other schools, and record numbers of teachers are setting up free schools. So, yes, they improve standards, yes, they empower staff and, yes, they empower parents. To be on the side of free schools is to be on the side of teachers, parents and, most importantly, pupils.
The programme owes much of its success to the bravery, vision and perseverance of the team of my right honourable friend Michael Gove when he became Education Secretary in 2010. Naysayers—and, indeed, some officials—said that ordinary people could not set up schools, only the state could. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, had already started to highlight and challenge the “cartel” in charge of our schools. My noble friends Lord O’Shaughnessy, Lord Hill and Lord Nash, alongside Michael Gove, truly broke this monopolistic way of thinking and in so doing enabled the hundreds of applicants to come forward and set up their own free schools
Free from uniformity and monopoly, we now have a system rich in choice, diversity and innovation. We have schools being set up in former churches, fire stations and government offices. But more than buildings, we have new approaches. Parents, teachers and businesses are putting forward many valid philosophies about how to educate our children. At the same time, they are also delivering for the most deprived children.
Take the London Academy of Excellence, the core purpose of which is to provide social mobility through education. It was set up by Brighton College after it learned that children in the local area—one of the most deprived in the UK—had nowhere to go for sixth form, and more than two-thirds of the students are from families who have never sent a child to university. Since 2014, more than 1,000 LAE students have gone on to study degree courses, the majority at Russell group universities. Not only has the LAE played a leading role in raising standards in one of the poorest parts of the capital, it has set a new benchmark for others to emulate.
Take the maths schools, King’s College London Mathematics School and Exeter Mathematics School. These schools attract disadvantaged students who typically do not pursue a maths path, and send 100% and 98% respectively of their leavers on to STEM courses at university. King’s Maths School topped the Department for Education A-levels table last year. With Liverpool opening and Durham now confirmed, it is worth noting that none of these brilliant schools could exist except as free schools.
Take School 21. The founders wanted a broader approach to education, encompassing academic study, well-being and problem solving. Serving pupils of all backgrounds in Stratford, east London, School 21 is outperforming the national average on every metric, and is rated outstanding, with the inspectors commenting:
“Outstanding leadership has produced a highly effective school within a short time. Pupils across the school make exceptional progress … The behaviour of pupils is outstanding”.
Individual examples such as these inspire, just as the overall statistics reassure. Yet the policy is not perfect and can be improved in one important respect; namely, funding. The Treasury has not provided enough. It is as though Apple produced the iPhone, found it successful, and then declared it should produce fewer of them. Free schools must be championed and promoted, and be given sufficient funding to allow this to happen. Their potential to raise standards through competition must be properly realised. The Treasury’s historic hostility to surplus places has masked school failure by forcing parents to send their children to failing schools, thereby keeping their pupil registers artificially high.
Yet this should not detract from the theme of today’s debate. Free schools, in levels of engagement from teachers and parents, their impact on pupils, and educational outcomes, are speaking for themselves. The impact is profound and their contribution to improving educational standards beyond doubt. Free schools are living proof that poor-performing public monopolies harm the most disadvantaged and that, only by breaking them, can we give all the citizens of this country the public services they truly deserve.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, it is not often one has the opportunity to join an evangelical meeting in the House of Lords, and I am very grateful for this debate. First, I declare an interest as president of the outreach programme at Imperial College London. I do not know how many schools I have visited in the past 12 months, but I have spoken to about 55,000 school children and at numerous teaching conferences, as well as visiting three schools a week on average across the country. I have focused mainly on the poorest parts of England, including the south coast, the area 50 miles east of Cambridge where it becomes a complete desert, some parts of Essex, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, the north-east and the West Country—I spent some days living there and talking in schools, mainly in Devon. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, is to be deeply congratulated on securing this important debate. I want to pay tribute to him as a respected Minister for Education and somebody who I like and deeply admire for what he has done. I also pay tribute to him for his notably successful free school, the Pimlico Academy; I think I was the first Pimlico lecturer some years ago, as he will remember.
As children progress from primary to secondary, and then on to Year 12, they are increasingly channelled in school. Irrespective of the subject, young people are required to learn more and more about less and less. The curriculum encourages knowledge of facts, but so often their school subjects are not brought into a wider context or focus. For example, in science, they may learn a great deal about physics, chemistry and biology, but they are not able to put this into an ethical or societal context. Science literacy is not merely a matter of knowing a great number of facts about physics; it is much more about understanding the relevance of that science—for example, understanding the societal issues involved. Because of the narrowness of the curriculum, science literacy is even worse in students not studying science. This is important, because in a democracy, we need to make wise decisions about how science is used. These decisions cannot be left to scientists, or—worse still, dare I say it—to politicians. Every piece of modern technology may hold great promise for us, but it is often undercalculated, and the significant threats are usually forgotten and ignored until too late.
I have explained what kind of schools I mostly visit. Many teachers in these parts of the world seem very deeply depressed, and I travel long distances on the train back to London in the evening feeling equally depressed about what I have seen and discussed. So many teachers feel they are undervalued and are unable to offer a real education because of the juggernaut of the curriculum. The idea of establishing free schools, which are not so heavily bound to the curriculum, where teachers can choose more what they teach, is really valuable—I have no doubt about that. Replacing much-constrained local government with the increased involvement of parents is also a brilliant notion. It should work because so much of education depends on family background. In many parts of the country, there are excellent teachers but children go home to houses where there are no books, no interest in education and no understanding of what success it might bring in the future. This is much more difficult in schools where there is not a sufficient budget for a mix of A-levels; for example, mixing science and humanities subjects, which is important for making these things contextual.
In my view, funding for education is more important than funding for the health service. I say this in front of the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, who was a Health Minister for the past few years. We are grateful to him and sorry to see him leave his post. We spend too much time considering the NHS but not nearly enough considering the underfunding of education, which I am told about again and again in state schools that I visit throughout the country.
The interesting ideas behind establishing free schools should allow flexibility, but what we observe, on the whole, is far from a massive success. There is very little hard, peer-reviewed evidence that in the majority of free schools children have a better idea of how their learning in science or humanities fits the societal context to make them better citizens. In my visits, I have seen insufficient capability for debate and discussion. Moreover, teachers tell me that it is often extremely difficult to get parents really involved. Indeed, the statistics published recently by the Sutton Trust suggest that the involvement of parents is decreasing, not increasing. It is probably true in two-thirds of those schools.
At Imperial College we had a very close relationship with Harris academies. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, did not mention this but he will remember that for three years we taught science in a special context to his students who came to our Reach Out Lab. We did the metrics, with proper educationalists measuring the impact on those students. We found that it changed their aspirations and the way that teachers thought about how they might teach their science, but at the end of the three years, we had an unfortunate message from the finance officer, who told us that working with the Reach Out Lab at Imperial was no longer possible because they could not afford the luxury of working with us. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has pointed out, there is not sufficient money in the system, but our metrics demonstrated that improved science capital is not a luxury. It is desirable. Nick Gibb said that the schools represented,
“a renaissance … of intellectual thought and debate about pedagogy and the curriculum that used to be vested only within the secret garden of the universities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/18; col. 359WH].
That is counterproductive to what we were trying to do. There seemed to be no understanding that that was very far from the real case, so I regret that statement.
When free schools start to fail to attract pupils, their £4,000 capitation fee starts to reduce as well. Eventually such a school with failing pupils may end up with inadequate finance and may no longer be financially viable. As your Lordships know, a number of free schools started with great verve but have collapsed. This is a disaster, not only for the children but for the teachers and the system. It is really shocking when teachers are already dispirited.
Another issue is the employment of untrained teachers, which nobody has mentioned. Of course, it could be argued that I am untrained teacher. I do not regard myself as being capable of teaching in a school. I could not do that job. I can come in and give a short lecture but what people want from me is the expertise to raise the morale and the profile of a particular subject, perhaps briefly, once a year. The Government’s acceptance of the failure to have trained teachers in these schools is massively disrespectful to the teaching profession. The qualification in teaching is the lowest standard with which we need to start. When I qualified as a doctor, I was not really able to do very good medicine—I needed time to continue training in order to get to the right level, just as teachers do. We should never forget that in relation to our training system. It is important that teachers acquire the ability to communicate. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has given an account of how successful these schools are, but the metrics are dubious. The Government’s own reports suggest that we do not yet have a clear idea of whether the free schools have been truly successful: more research and details are needed.
My first question for the Minister is: what peer-reviewed research into the metrics is currently being carried out by the Government, and which metrics are being used? If he cannot answer that, perhaps he could write to me. Secondly, will he tell the Committee what money has been spent on schools that have failed, or that started but did not finish? It would also be helpful to know whether he agrees with the Sutton Trust’s report, which states that on the whole the free schools that have been established do not attract the most needy and deprived children in those areas. One problem is that the competition that everybody has talked about is not a good idea in relation to our education system. Education should not be about competition but about collaboration, and to introduce competition into our education system is not sensible. The success of individuals depends not on those individuals themselves but on how they work with each other.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my registered interests. Incidentally, it is deeply appropriate that we are having this debate in the Moses Room: in Hebrew Moses is known as Moshe rabbim, or “Moses our teacher”. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for bringing forward this debate and all his work in this area, and to the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, who has followed on. But I pay particular tribute to my friend, the right honourable Michael Gove, for making this important initiative a reality. Michael Gove is an outstanding politician, a great thinker and, most importantly, a great doer, who makes things happen—as with this programme.
The 2010 Conservative manifesto stated that the free school initiative would create a generation of good small schools with high standards of discipline. The programme is still in its infancy, but we should be encouraged by the findings of the report by the Sutton Trust and the National Foundation for Educational Research, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We can look at statistics in so many ways. I looked at the statistics that say that at key stage 4 pupils in free schools perform slightly better than those in other types of schools, and that disadvantaged pupils in free schools perform at the equivalent of quarter of a grade higher in each subject compared with their peers in other types of schools.
As with any new initiative, however, all is not perfect and we must learn from the mistakes. It is clear, however, that a solid start has been made, and I encourage the Minister to ensure a further rollout of free schools wherever serious and competent individuals are prepared to get involved in their running.
The process can be challenging. I had the opportunity, with colleagues, to create a free school in Borehamwood in Hertfordshire. I was a trustee of the successful Yavneh College, an academy of real excellence. As I mentioned in the Chamber recently, according to the Sunday Times, Yavneh College was the best-performing non-selective secondary school in the country. Following its establishment in 2006 and its remarkable achievements thereafter, it seemed obvious to all of us that a primary school should be added to the campus, and in September 2016 Yavneh College Academy Trust expanded to include Yavneh Primary School, a new free school announced by the then Secretary of State, Nicky Morgan, who was tremendously helpful in establishing it. The primary school is enormously oversubscribed. A new state-of-the-art building will open in a few months. Yavneh places an emphasis on love of learning, and on compassion and care for others. The school motto is “A world built on kindness”. The ethos has four key elements: respect, kindness, politeness and courtesy.
The Jewish community itself is blessed with a number of successful free schools, benefiting pupils in London, Leeds and Hertfordshire. One extremely positive initiative has been where free schools have joined together and created a network to give each other mutual support, and expanded into developmental school improvement and continued professional development for staff. Would the Minister take a look at this initiative and see whether this kind of co-operation can be replicated elsewhere?
One of the schools involved in this initiative is Etz Chaim Jewish Primary School in Barnet. The head teacher Yvonne Baron reflected how the pupils were involved from the foundation of the school. She said:
“They were literally the centre of every decision we made”.
So many things were the pupils’ ideas, from the colour of the lunch trays to the height of the furniture, from the annual talent show to the charity months. As a school, Etz Chaim has flourished. One teacher remarked about the excitement she felt setting up the year 4 and 5 classrooms from scratch, something she said most teachers will never experience.
The most recent recipient of free school status in the Jewish community has been Kisharon, a wonderful special school, often described as a jewel in the crown of the community. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his support and encouragement. Kisharon is now building a state-of-the-art campus, increasing its capacity from 40 students to 70. The new arrangement between the department and Kisharon has driven up educational standards and improved the facilities for learning disabilities. Becoming a free school has facilitated the opportunity to create specific expert learning zones for children with autism and other multiple learning difficulties and disabilities.
On the basis of this positive story, will my noble friend the Minister take a further look at the issue that, as things stand, a special school cannot be a special and faith school? The experience of Kisharon rather proves that this is not only possible but desirable.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Nash for initiating this debate. I pay tribute to his tireless dedication to the free school project during his time as a Minister and beyond. I would also like to mention my noble friend Lady Evans, our Leader, who I had the great privilege of working with before she joined your Lordships’ House. She was instrumental in leading the New Schools Network to empower and support hundreds of free school applications to become reality. I have had the pleasure of hosting many events in Parliament on behalf of the New Schools Network, and I have great admiration for the efforts and dedication of everyone involved in bringing the free school policy to fruition, in particular, the founder of the New Schools Network, Rachel Wolf, and the honorary life president, Diana Berry, for their outstanding work and many years of exceptional commitment. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hill for supporting the free school network when he was Education Minister.
I confess that I am not an expert on education. But I am a passionate believer in vision and aspiration. I know from my own experience that few things are as gratifying as watching the kernel of an idea grow and flourish. I also know that success is seldom instant. Hard work, commitment and careful cultivation are needed. Before you get things right, often you have to get things wrong. This is simple evolution.
Why am I saying this? Because I find it frustrating to see that free schools are so quickly dismissed or vilified by critics. We could start by remembering that the free school initiative is still very much in its infancy. In my area, Harrow, the free schools that have been set up are doing very well. Pinner High School already has a number of awards under its belt. Avanti House School was very well received by the local Hindu community, and even received a visit by Her Majesty the Queen during her Diamond Jubilee celebrations. Both schools are heavily oversubscribed and were driven by grass-roots voluntary community members. I pay particular tribute to Nitesh Gor, who founded the Avanti Schools Trust. I am delighted that his services to education were recognised when he was awarded an OBE last year.
Many free school projects are funded by philanthropists such as my noble friend Lord Harris, which helps reduce the burden on taxpayers. Nationally, the story has also been encouraging. It is not perfect, but it is going in the right direction.
I was looking at the data released by the Department for Education about the Progress 8 metric, which measures progress in relation to prior attainment. According to this, free school students scored a quarter of a grade higher than children with similar starting points across the country.
I say this to the critics of free schools: many free schools are already producing excellent exam results, as we heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Nash. Many are in areas that could hardly be described as affluent. Taken as a whole, secondary free schools cater to an above-average number of disadvantaged students, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, mentioned earlier. Many cater for ethnic minorities and even children of asylum seekers. All of this demonstrates that free schools are not the exclusive preserve of a privileged few but are inclusive of any community that wants to take them up. Any argument to the contrary is not only simplistic but insulting. It suggests that poverty and aspiration do not go together, that only the affluent can afford to be ambitious and that any attempts to challenge the status quo are futile. That flies in the face of everything we claim to stand for in this country, and we would do well to keep that in mind when we debate topics of this nature.
Of course, there is a flip side. A number of free schools have not taken off despite extensive planning and investment. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned 50 that were opened and subsequently failed. Taken in isolation, people may say this demonstrates that the free school project is flawed, that it does not work. But this brings me back to the point about allowing time, space and tolerance for a policy to find its way. We should see the bigger picture. For every free school that has been judged to have failed, more have succeeded. For every mistake we have made, lessons were learned. As a society we have become impatient. We expect every social ailment to be cured quickly and precisely, without fault or friction. But that is not life. That is not reality. Free schools are a creative response to systemic failure.
Successive Governments have tried and failed to solve the challenges facing our education system, for which there are many reasons. It is not the fault of one Government, political party or ideology. It is much deeper and more complex, and the changing world around us makes it even more so. We are at a dramatic crossroads for our country where the whole world is moving forward at a pace previously unimagined. The digital age is revolutionising economies, rewriting the job market and reshaping the skills we will need. No one can predict what the market will look like in 20 years. Education, like the future, needs to be fluid. From what I have seen, free schools are helping to bridge the gaps not only in skills but in the very essence of our thinking. It is not just about grades, it is about learning. It is not about following formulas but about finding fresh approaches. In the words of the head teacher of Pinner High School,
“we are not adapting to the future, we are creating it”.
Long may this continue.
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, next door there are 150 people repeating the same six things at great length. Here, there may be fewer of us, but if we recognise that we are talking about the education of our children, I think we are talking about something rather more important for the long-term future of our country, and there is also much more chance of us hearing something new.
It is a great pleasure to speak in the same debate as my noble friends Lord Nash and Lord Agnew. Between the three of us, for better or worse, you have the history of the free schools policy in government since 2010. It is a particular pleasure to speak alongside my noble friend Lord Harris, who has done more personally and directly to help children in our country than the rest of us put together.
When I think back to my first meetings with officials in the summer of 2010 and I look at where things stand today, it is undeniable that this policy has made a lasting difference. It was not introduced by coercion but, certainly initially, bubbled up from below. That element of permissiveness and experimentation in the free schools policy motivated me most.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, I have never believed that structure is more important than people. I never argued that academies or free schools would automatically be better than local authority schools simply because they had a different structure. I never suggested that free schools were guaranteed to succeed, although I certainly believe that if you delegate responsibility and trust people more, more of them are likely to succeed.
I was always clear, too, that some were bound to fail, but given the system-wide failures in our education system that we inherited, I felt that giving people more responsibility, allowing them to respond to local needs and encouraging them to challenge the status quo was a risk worth taking. If you look at the overall results, as well as some of the individual success stories we have heard today, I still think that that was the right call.
It is also worth recalling how bitter the opposition to the idea of free schools was at the beginning. We were told that no one would want to take part, that free schools were being unfairly bankrolled and that they would cause mayhem in the system. None of that has turned out to be true; they have the same funding, the same inspections and often far cheaper buildings than under the old regime. When I became a Minister, I realised that there was a game among academy sponsors, who were competing to see who could get the most expensive new building out of the department. It is true that finding premises in London was difficult and sometimes horribly expensive—I am sure that it still is—but we applied downward pressure on costs overall.
Getting the first 24 free schools open in less than a year, when it had typically taken three, four or more years to open a new school, was hard pounding. It would have been impossible without three groups of people. The first was my Secretary of State, Mr Gove. He delegated responsibility to his junior Minister 100% but would also come charging towards the gunfire when things got lively—the opposite of some Secretaries of State we can all think of, who want to control everything and then blame others when things go wrong.
The second group was the individuals behind the free school proposals. Whenever things were difficult, I found that meeting the proposers was a guaranteed way to cheer me up and make me buckle down again. Their enthusiasm, hard work, bloody-mindedness, vision and commitment to making sure that local children had a decent education drove us on. Without them, there would be no free schools.
The third group was my officials. I remember their looks of incredulity at my extremely permissive approach, bearing in mind that they had all been working for Mr Ed Balls, who had a plan for everything where everything fitted together in perfect logic. Then, under the leadership of Mela Watts—who I believe is still doing the job today—they got stuck in. They had to find premises, negotiate leases and construct vetting procedures—the whole lot. They offered me words of caution when they needed to but drove forward into unknown territory with great grace, humour and commitment. This could not have happened without them either.
I want to offer two thoughts. I have not been close to this for quite a while. My first thought is for the Government and my second is for the Opposition. My thought for the Government concerns something that my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy touched upon, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. One consequence of the success of free schools is that they have become part of the establishment. The thing that I thought was most exciting about them was the innovation and disruption that they brought to the system. I remember that one of the early proposals was for Spanish bilingual primary schools. That would never have come from the traditional state system. We have to hold on to that disruptive and imaginative approach. In relation to maths schools and special schools, we need to keep the enthusiasm there was from the parents of children who had learning and other disabilities to bring a new approach. They must keep their disruptive edge. I am sure my noble friend Lord Agnew is seized of the importance of that. We do not want to create a new orthodoxy where there is a new mantra of two legs bad, four legs good, or whatever it is.
Secondly, and briefly, to the Opposition, I echo the points that were made earlier. I hope that people do not one day feel the need to make huge amounts of structural change all over again. For those who may think that what it needs is just a bit more co-ordination and centralisation and a small, gentle helping hand, we all know that helping hands from government can quite rapidly become overintimate embraces and beyond that come close to strangulation. We need to beware on both sides.
We all know how easy it is for government Ministers to make policy announcements and huge, grandiose promises. The free schools policy is a clear example of where we underpromised but overdelivered. For that reason alone, it is worthy of notice and celebration.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, first, I ought to declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a former head teacher of two maintained-sector schools in deprived communities. I say that because this has been very much a debate about free schools, but they have to be put into perspective. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is right that among the speakers we have the three architects of free schools and our last three Ministers of Education in the House of Lords. All three have brought real care, understanding and consideration to that office, and I thank them for that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for facilitating this debate. I do not suppose it is a surprise that we are having this debate, given how many Conservative Peers are involved in the free school movement and how the—I shall use the word “tentacles”, but it sounds a bit harsh—tentacles of the new school network have gone into government. Indeed, our current Leader of House was involved in the free school movement. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, was right and wrong. First, he was wrong about his policy statement and his idea of free schools. Free schools started in the 1960s and 1970s. There were two free schools in Liverpool. A character called John Ord started one of them. They did not believe in a set curriculum; it was about what they wanted to do. They did not believe in hierarchy. They certainly did not believe in paying their head teacher, if one existed, huge sums of money, or the chief executive, if one existed. So he is wrong about the history of free school movement, but he is right that systems cannot improve outcomes.
Teachers and leadership improve outcomes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill, who said virtually the same thing. He said we should not believe that structures improve our education system—they do not. I lived through a period in Liverpool when the then Labour Party believed that all small, single-sex secondary schools should be closed. It believed we should not have small, single-sex schools. It did away with them all and we had large, co-ed, community comprehensives. That did not improve teaching at all. What improves teaching is quality. We mention countries such as Finland, which was of course top of Mr Gove’s list at one stage; one of the things such countries all have is a belief in teachers. They are well paid and well trained and have continuous professional development. That is what we have to do in this country.
I was slightly disappointed when the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned a particular academy he had been to. I think anybody who speaks on education should visit a variety of schools, so that they know what they are talking about. Sadly, we are focused at the moment on just one type of school. I would like to take him to my old school in Halewood, one of the most deprived parts of Liverpool. That three-form entry school had results above the national average and a gold standard arts award. I could take you to dozens of other schools like that. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about these wonderful, successful schools, but I do not like playing one school off against another. I do not like saying, “This type of school is successful”, implying that other types of school must be failures. I notice the noble Baroness did not mention the £138 million spent on opening 62 free schools, UTCs and studio schools that have either closed, partially closed or failed to open.
I have followed this debate closely, believing strongly in the maintenance of an education system that is free at the point of delivery and in which schools are accountable to the communities whose children and young people they educate. I welcome successful businesspeople and entrepreneurs, including the noble Lords, Lord Nash and Lord Agnew, being prepared to give not only their time and expertise but their money to their beliefs in the education system. I welcome that; there is nothing wrong with that and we should not denigrate it. I am sure I am not alone in going to a Carnegie library—mine was in Liverpool—which is one of 600-odd such libraries, similarly built through philanthropic endeavour. They are still operating, and are now listed buildings.
Business sponsorship, a more modern form of philanthropy, was of course at the heart of the development of city technology colleges, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in the Education Reform Act some 30 years ago. The first wave of CTCs had 20% of their capital costs provided by a sponsor. Over time, the CTC model has morphed into academy schools, with free schools—an umbrella term that includes 442 free schools, 50 university technical colleges and 27 studio schools—being an important subset of academy schools.
I was puzzled—I still am—about why this debate is about free schools rather than academies. The Government’s initial, romantic vision of a free school was of a school set up by a group of parents or teachers to provide education particularly suited to the needs of children in a particular community. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is right when he says that we should not let them become part of the establishment. If they were successful—and many were—their success was in challenging the status quo and being different. I remember going to TreeHouse School in Finchley, which started as a free school. It was set up by parents who were angry that schools did not provide for the needs of autistic children. They challenged the system; they are the sand in the oyster and they wanted to make a change. That is right and proper, but sadly I do not think that is happening any more.
Like most romantic visions, the reality is very different and the majority of free schools are now constituent parts of multi-academy trusts. According to research by the Education Policy Institute in November 2017, nearly one-fifth of free schools had joined very large multi-academy trusts. In May 2018, a report by the NFER and the Sutton Trust, which I think has been mentioned, found that three-quarters of free schools set up in the past two years were part of a multi-academy trust, with parents involved in setting up only 4% of recently established free schools.
Free schools—and academies, of which there are a much larger number—have had a significant impact on the education system in England, but that impact is very much like the infamous curate’s egg: while it is good in parts, many parts have not been good at all. How has the education system benefited from free schools? One group who have definitely benefited are those chief executive officers of academies and academy chains who earn three-figure salaries, significantly more than even our Prime Minister, and in some cases even more than vice-chancellors of universities. The Minister is trying to ensure that the salary increases of school leaders are kept down to 1.5%, but given their freedoms, are they allowed to do that?
My concerns—not about the free school movement but about free schools—were voiced at the beginning of this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. My principal concern is the democratic deficit in the academy sector, which, again, is not in the philosophy of why free schools were set up. Academies can choose to be totally detached from the local authority in which they are situated, with little or no accountability to the community they serve. If a free school is part of one of the large national or system leader multi-academy trusts, with schools in many local authority areas, the head of the trust will inevitably be many miles from some of the schools and inaccessible to parents should they wish to raise a concern.
The Education Select Committee was told by the leader of a major trust that the schools in the MAT were more involved with other schools in the trust than with those in their area. Academies are not obliged to have governing bodies—although many still do—and many academy head teachers have much less freedom and autonomy; decisions are taken by the chief executive at the centre. One of the key freedoms that academies and multi-academy trusts have is to choose which subjects of the national curriculum to teach. I was interested when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, talked about social skills being taught. The sad thing is that if you have those freedoms, you can choose not to do PSHE. Will he join me in urging the Government that those social skills should be taught at school?
The announcement was made that first aid and CPR would be taught in schools. When the Minister replies, will he say whether that will apply to all schools, including free schools and academies? The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also asked the Minister about the financial difficulties of small schools. He is right that there are problems with small schools. Look at how rural schools struggle, when they may be the only beacon in a community. Will the Minister agree that small schools in deprived communities, which are the heart and lifeblood of that community, should be financially supported as well?
We have heard that the jury is still out on whether free schools are any more successful educationally than other schools in the community they serve. What we do know is that free schools have a smaller percentage of students eligible for free meals than local community schools, and that in areas with above-average deprivation, free school pupils are more affluent than the neighbourhood average. This is because many free schools have very expensive uniforms, and this has the effect of weeding out applications from poorer parents. One well-known school in west London has a uniform supplier that charges a minimum of £47 for a blazer with braid and a badge you cannot buy and sew on to a cheaper blazer. It is twice the cost of one at John Lewis and has to be dry-cleaned. A pullover costs £22.50—three times the cost of one from John Lewis—and so it goes on. This is not fair on people who struggle financially. It seems that some free schools have close regard to the unaffordability of school uniform. Having wealthier parents is unlikely to make a school slip down the performance league tables.
Free schools always take pupils from other local schools, making those schools less viable. In rural areas, for example, the secondary schools closest to new free schools lose half a form of entry at year 7. Free schools do not have a good record in meeting the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. Free schools are better than the average—or is that worse?—at excluding pupils. That is one league table where academies dominate the premier league. Free schools are seeing fewer and fewer parents getting involved. It seems to me that there is no such thing as a “free” school. They cost the taxpayer more than community schools, they cost parents more than community schools and they are a burden, not an asset, to other local schools.
What about the future? I do not agree with the Labour Party that free schools should be abolished. Free schools should have the same freedoms and responsibilities as all other schools.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the return of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to the fray. For two years, we sparred across our respective Dispatch Boxes, which I very much enjoyed, but suddenly, he was gone. We subsequently learned that this was to spend more time with his family, but not in the fashion normally associated with political withdrawals: the noble Lord’s family is synonymous with the Future Academies trust, which runs six schools, including a free school. I note that, at one time, the Minister was also one of its trustees.
I was aware of the Leader of the House’s background when she was appointed to a ministerial post from her role at the New Schools Network. Prior to today, I was unaware of the role of the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy; the noble Lord, Lord Nash, described his as having “invented” the free schools programme. Adding the noble Lord, Lord Hill, to the mix, someone less charitable than myself might point to a pattern in those connections.
I listened closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said in his introductory remarks. I have to say that he did not surprise me. I say that because my research for the debate revealed a newspaper article from October 2013 in which the noble Lord was taken to task by my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and accused of misleading Parliament on the performance of free schools. I understand and accept where the noble Lord is coming from, which naturally colours his view of free schools. Mine, however, is rather less rose-tinted.
As has been pointed out by noble Lords and in recent reports by the Education Policy Institute and the Sutton Trust, judging the contribution of free schools to improving educational standards after seven years in existence is somewhat premature. Even with that caveat, it should be pointed out that free schools account for just 2% of all state-funded schools in England and parents in two-thirds of the country are not within reasonable travelling distance of either a primary or secondary free school. Surely any improvement that it is possible to demonstrate can only be a tiny one; there is no evidence that free schools are better overall than any other schools, once intake is taken into account.
I chuckled at the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, for ideology to be put to one side. Free schools form part of a wider ideological drive by the Conservative Party, aided and abetted for five years by the Liberal Democrats, to undermine and weaken local authorities in general, particularly through preventing them developing the maintained school sector. Since 2015, there has been a presumption that no new school can open unless it is part of the free school programme. In the main, new free schools have been opened since then as part of academy chains, meaning that they are not in the mould originally intended.
My noble friend Lord Winston pointed to the successes that he has encountered in free schools, but when these schools were launched, they aimed to encourage parent groups to establish their own schools, increase the number of schools with innovative approaches to their curriculum or ethos and meet the demographic needs of specific areas. Having noted that research bodies have expressed the view that not enough time has passed for meaningful judgments to be made on free schools improving education standards, I will be careful in assessing those aims, but it is not unfair to say that, thus far, free schools have not lived up to their billing of being either led by parents to a sufficient extent or a major source of curriculum innovation. The number of schools established with parental involvement was at its height in the early years of the programme, with more than 40%, but that figure has now dropped to less than 20%, which is most regrettable.
Of those that parent groups did launch, several have since been taken over by academy trusts. One high-profile casualty was reported last summer, when the Greenwich free school—one of the first to be approved under the scheme and founded by a group that included a former head of strategy at the DfE—was handed over to a large multi-academy trust. That free school is now just another academy, suggesting the Government’s vision of schools created by enthusiastic activists has run out of steam.
Academy chains now dominate the free school programme, as we have heard. Some 39% of all free schools have now been opened by multi-academy trusts, which is reflected in the view of the Sutton Trust’s report that,
“as free schools have now become the default model for new schools, with all new academies characterised as such, it has become a vehicle for the expansion of MATs”.
In other words, it is a monopoly—something referred to disparagingly by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, as Marxist. As a Marxist, I can say that he needs to do some more reading on that subject. I am not advocating monopolies. I really worry about the blindness of anything that can be seen to be countering the argument for academies and free schools we encounter from the Government side.
On the assumption that it was not the Government’s intention that free schools should become a vehicle for the expansion of MATs, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that development and whether he and his ministerial colleagues intend to take action to redress the balance and provide the necessary resources for the pendulum to swing back towards parents. That is what we want to see, and it is why Labour in government will end the programme to further extend free schools and academies, to be replaced by a model that I will refer to later.
There is also the question of a failure of free schools to address demographic need. The Government have allowed the situation to develop where local authorities have statutory responsibility for providing school places in their area, yet they cannot tell free schools or academies to take in more pupils to meet that need, even where those schools are below capacity. That anti-local authority policy makes no sense and Labour will bring it to an end.
In its report of November 2017, the Education Policy Institute found that free school growth had been greatest in the areas most in need of new school places, as it should be, but it also found significant numbers in areas where there was already an excess number of places. More worryingly, I suggest, the proportion of pupils who attend free schools that are eligible for free school meals is 13.3%, against 14.7% in all schools. That was even worse in reception year, with proportions of 32% eligible for free school meals, but only 24% in free schools. That is clearly an issue that has to be addressed by the Government.
I am also concerned that free schools drive a coach and horses through sensible planning of school places and consequently waste considerable amounts of money, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Morris. I do not welcome the closure of any school so I will not overemphasise the fact that 10% of free schools have closed, but they have obviously done so at considerable cost, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Winston.
The question of what price is paid for school sites is obviously a serious one, because it has been highlighted by the National Audit Office that considerably above the going rate or the market rate has been paid. That represents profligacy with public funds, especially at a time when school budgets are stretched to breaking point. Transparency should be at the heart of state-funded schools policy. Perhaps the Minister would care to say whether the DfE is still playing fast and loose with public finances as regards free schools and with the information provided on those finances, which is often difficult to achieve?
As the shadow Secretary of State has made clear, Labour will end the free school programme and restore the right of local authorities to open and commission new schools, but we are not doing so at the expense of parents. We have often voiced our concern about the cost-effectiveness of the programme, but we will ensure that there is sufficient capital investment and that the manner in which we spend public money is not hidden from the public. Labour policy is centred on accountability and, wherever possible, local accountability. We will return decision-making about new schools and changes to schools to the local level. We are clear that this kind of decision-making should be centred in one place and that there should be proper local engagement. Local authority decision-making is done through a proper and transparent process, unlike, I have to say, regional schools commissioners, who make decisions behind closed doors with no proper public consultation or process. That will come to an end under the national education service that we will establish.
We will introduce a new generation of co-operative schools. Those community-run schools were introduced under the Government of Tony Blair, and there are currently around 350 of them in place at the moment, which is not widely known and perhaps not widely enough talked about. We want to encourage more of these schools to open again where new schools under parental control are sought. We will allow parents and teachers who want to get involved in running them to work with local authorities to do so. But the ultimate decision as to where they should be established will rest with local authorities, not with the DfE. I think it somewhat bizarre that it is the Conservatives who favour central planning over a devolved structure, but that will change as soon as we have a general election.
What we will not do is close existing free schools or academies. Going forward, the educational landscape will be based on local accountability at the heart of it, not central control, with parents increasingly marginalised, as we have heard, under the free schools programme. That may not involve the major structural change that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, fears, but it will offer a more positive and participative approach to our children’s education in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nash for calling this debate to provide the opportunity to speak about the successes of the free schools programme and the contribution that they have made to improving educational standards across our country. I thank my noble friend for his continued commitment to the free schools programme and the dedication he showed as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the School System before me. I acknowledge his work with Future Academies, the trust responsible for establishing Pimlico Primary, a free school that has been rated outstanding.
The free schools programme was established in 2010, with the first ones opening in 2011. The Government invited proposers to take up the challenge of setting up a free school—groups which were passionate about ensuring that the next generation is best placed to face the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Now, eight years on, the benefits of their hard work can be seen across the country. As of 1 January this year, 444 free schools are open, which will provide 250,000 places when at full capacity. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, 121 of 152 local authorities now have at least one free school in their area, and we are currently working with groups to establish a further 265 free schools, currently at different stages of pre-opening.
I agree, obviously, with my noble friend Lord Popat that the free school story is a positive one. There is a growing body of evidence to show that free schools are improving educational standards. I will come to that in more detail later. I am pleased that my noble friend highlighted in particular two free schools in Harrow: Pinner High School and Avanti House. These schools are a credit to those involved in setting them up and the teachers who work there.
Ofsted’s latest information shows that, of those free schools that have been inspected, 85% are rated good or outstanding. This is a fantastic achievement, and I congratulate the proposers and teachers who have worked so hard to achieve this. The performance data of free schools speaks for itself. Free schools are among the highest- performing state-funded secondary schools, with pupils at the end of key stage 4 having made more progress on average than pupils in other types of state-funded schools in 2018.
In 2018, four of the top 10 provisional Progress 8 scores for state-funded schools in England were achieved by free schools: William Perkin Church of England in Ealing, Dixons Trinity in Bradford, Eden Girls’ School in Coventry and Tauheedul Islam Boys’ High School in Blackburn. The latter two were opened by Star Academies, which has grown, through the free schools programme, from running a single school in the north-west to running 24 across the country, made up of nine academies and 15 free schools, and it has approval to open two more free schools. Of the 10 free schools that have been inspected by Ofsted, every single one has been rated outstanding. In addition, Dixons Trinity Academy achieved extraordinary results in 2017 and last year with its first set of GCSEs, placing it among the top schools in England for progress achieved by its pupils. Strikingly, the progress score for disadvantaged pupils was higher than for the whole school, including their more affluent peers.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked about some longitudinal analysis on the impact of free schools. I have offered data here and I can offer some more, but I will write to him to bring all these strands together. On a personal note, I happened to be at that lecture at Pimlico Academy six or seven years ago. I was as inspired as the hundreds of children listening to the noble Lord that day. I speak as someone who failed chemistry O-level, but the noble Lord brought that subject alive to me that night.
My noble friend Lord Kirkham and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about disadvantage. There are numerous examples of free schools helping to improve outcomes for these children. There is the Reach Academy Feltham, which opened in 2012, which is a small all-through free school set up by a group of teachers in an area of high deprivation. Ofsted rated it outstanding in 2014. It was one of the top-performing schools nationally for progress in 2017, with disadvantaged pupils making more progress than other pupils. In 2018, provisional results show that the school has a progress score well above the national average.
I join my noble friend Lord Hill in publicly thanking my noble friend Lord Harris for the achievements of his trust. In just one example, Harris Westminster, which opened in 2014 and with close ties to Westminster School, 40% of its pupils are from disadvantaged backgrounds and 18 pupils got into Oxbridge last year. These schools show that the socioeconomic background does not need to be a barrier to excellence. To reassure my noble friend Lord Kirkham and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the whole of the country is benefiting. Last year, 16 free schools achieved outstanding judgments from Ofsted. Eleven of those were outside London, including Birmingham, Lancashire, Slough, Leeds, Coventry and Stockton-on-Tees.
Free schools have challenged the status quo, injecting fresh approaches. We are drawing on the talents and expertise of groups from different backgrounds, giving local communities and parents more freedom and choice so that every child can go to a good school that suits their child’s needs, whether that be a mainstream school with a specialism or an alternative provision or special school. Indeed, I give public credit to my noble friend Lord Baker for his tireless work in creating the UTC programme. In 2016-17, 21% of UTC key stage 5 pupils went on to an apprenticeship, which is three times the national average.
My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy made the crucial point that this is all about creating more good school places. This is not the only route, but it is leading the way through social entrepreneurship. Many noble Lords in this debate have played a crucial role in the free school programme, but I can safely say that my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy has to be one of the godfathers.
My noble friend Lady Stroud also asked about disadvantage. It is important to stress that nearly half of all open free schools are in the 30% most deprived areas in the country. We are proud of that fact. Results also show that when disadvantaged pupils attend these free schools they perform well at key stage 4. However, we know that there is more to do to ensure that free schools reach out to pupils in these areas, and with the most recent free school wave, Wave 13, we targeted the third of local authorities with the lowest standards and lowest capacity to improve, putting free schools in places most in need of good schools. We are currently evaluating those bids.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, is concerned about the cost of school buildings, but it is important to point out that we have reduced the building cost per square metre by over 30% from the framework that we inherited from the Labour Government. My predecessor, my noble friend Lord Nash, created LocatED as a specialist buying agency for property sites for free schools and it is already showing data that it is acquiring sites below the red book value, which is the benchmark for the cost of buildings.
I turn to special schools and AP schools. Our ambition includes children with special educational needs and disabilities, and children in alternative provision. We want them to be able to do their best in school, reach their potential and find careers leading to happy and fulfilling lives. To help achieve that ambition, as of 1 January this year we have opened 34 special and 41 alternative provision free schools. This includes the Pears Family School, which achieved an outstanding rating from Ofsted in 2017, with inspectors noting the high-quality therapeutic care and teaching alongside the strong progress made by its pupils.
My noble friend Lady Finn pointed out that we have now opened two maths schools in partnership with highly selective maths universities, King’s College London Maths School and Exeter Maths School. The aim of these schools is to prepare our most mathematically able students to succeed in maths disciplines at top universities and pursue mathematically intensive careers. We have two further maths free schools in pre-opening—one with St John’s College Cambridge and the University of Liverpool Maths College.
At the other end of the educational spectrum we have in pre-opening the London Screen Academy, supported by Working Title, which last year was the inaugural recipient of Screen International’s outstanding contribution to UK film award. This new school will provide film industry-focused vocational training for 16 to 19 year-olds alongside a broader curriculum. I give that as just one example to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy of the innovative groups still becoming involved. We are certainly encouraging free schools to be part of MATs to draw on the central support that they offer. This is simply part of the evolution of the programme and addresses the problem mentioned by my noble friend Lord Polak about school collaboration.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I take the point that the Minister is making, but will he address the point about parental involvement and the decreasing number of free schools being established at the behest of local parents?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord will be aware that any academy needs to have an academy council that must include two parental representatives.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
No, I accept that, but we review all bids and they are selected on merit. One of the lessons that we have learned from the programme is that free schools are better inside MATs. Being inside a MAT does not mean that it is one size fits all. I speak as someone who set up four free schools myself inside a MAT. There is a wide range of different practice inside those schools. To reassure the noble Lord, just because a free school is in a MAT does not mean that it is outside parental involvement or input.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I remember a time when members of the Labour Party were against free schools because they involved parental interest. They were opposed to free schools because they thought that parents would not be able to take on the running of free schools. Now they seem to be saying that they are not in favour of free schools because they do not involve parents enough. I do not know if there has been a change in the policy in the intervening years.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I rather agree with my noble friend that the Opposition seem to have gone on a journey. When free schools were originally mooted under my noble friend’s tenure we were told that no one was capable of creating one other than the Government. We have put paid to that myth.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
How can the Minister say that when he inherited an academy programme introduced by the Labour Government, which had the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and other people sponsoring schools, not local authorities? It is an inaccurate description of what went on.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
There were 200 out of some 22,000 schools. My noble friend Lord Harris was not a parent. We certainly built on the early foundations that Labour created in the academies programme, but there was not a great deal of evidence in those early 200 of parental involvement in their creation. Specifically, the programme went on after very experienced, dedicated people such as my noble friends Lord Nash and Lord Harris, became involved. They were well beyond parental age at the point.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
This is a really important point. I pay absolute tribute to the Labour Party for the academies it set up, which were obviously based on the CTCs and on a principle of autonomy at school level, of competition of choice and variety and innovation. But it must be pointed out—it is a while since I opened a free school or applied to open one—that you physically had to go round to parents, even if you were not a parent group yourself, and get them to commit to send their child to your school. It was baked into the creation of schools in a way that has never been done in this country, regardless of the nomenclature of free schools, academies or anything else. That alone is one of the unique and extremely welcome features of the free school movement that must continue to play a critical role in whatever form. I agree with my noble friend that the security of being in a multi-academy trust can be helpful, but that parent-driven demand is critical to its success.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned off-rolling and picked out a single school, the Hewett school—which strikes a slightly raw nerve, as I was the chairman of the trust that took it over. That school was a wonderful example of what we were dealing with in the reforms that we brought to education. The school was built for nearly 2,000 pupils and run into the ground by a local authority. At one point it was the largest secondary school in England, but the local authority hung on to it, delivering appalling education until, finally, when my trust took it over, there were fewer than 500 pupils. It was in chaos. Sorting out such situations, where a trust inherits protracted and entrenched failure, is no small undertaking. That ex-local authority school is a classic example of why the nirvana of so-called local democracy is meaningless in many cases.
We want to go further, to make sure that no one is left behind, by extending the programme to areas of the country that have not previously benefited from it. To this end, we launched Wave 13 last year, targeting the areas of the country with the lowest standards and the lowest capacity to improve. These are the places where opening a free school can have the greatest impact on improving outcomes.
Lord Addington
Looking at free schools and academy trusts, off-rolling is coming in. Will we look at why that is happening? I was at the Hewett school many years ago; most of the teachers will now be dead. I do not dispute that it has changed. It was a case of it having happened there and it catching my eye because I had a personal connection. What happens when you off-roll a group of people who are seen not to be achieving and who will damage you in the league table? What structures do we have in place to make sure that that is not happening—and we are not simply dumping them?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
Off-rolling is dealt with in the report by Edward Timpson which will be released quite soon—I think in the next few weeks. I will make sure that the noble Lord gets a copy of it. It certainly addresses all the issues that the noble Lord raises. One point that it makes is that academies are no more aggressive in off-rolling than anybody else in the system. I acknowledge that it is a problem. When I was running my trust, for any permanent exclusion I always said to a head teacher that they had to telephone me personally and told them, “This is a professional failure on your part”. We need to be much more rigorous, but I can assure noble Lords that the practice is widespread also among local authority schools. It is a complicated issue, because there is whole range of categories that a school can use when it shunts a child out of the door. For example, category B is sending a child home to work, although it really wants to get rid of the child. It is a very complicated area, but I will send the noble Lord the report as soon as it is available.
The application window for Wave 13 closed on 5 November. We received 124 applications. A rich collection of potential schools is proposed by a range of groups with a variety of expertise, both new providers and experienced multi-academy trusts. We are assessing those proposals and will announce the results later in the spring.
To answer the concerns raised by my noble friends Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord Hill, we are planning a further wave, Wave 14, which will continue to put free schools into the areas of most need. Innovation remains key. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that free schools are different because they start with a different ethos. They have the same legal basis as an academy, but having set up four myself—as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Watson—I know that they are quite different.
A further 55 special and 14 AP free schools are in the pipeline. Last summer we launched a special and AP free schools wave. By the deadline in October we had received 65 bids from local authorities, setting out their case for why a special or AP free school would benefit their area. Early this year we will launch a competition to select trusts in the areas with the strongest case for a free school.
My noble friend Lord Polak asked about the religious designation of special schools. He is right that they cannot have a specific designation, but they can acknowledge the religious impetus behind their application by registering themselves as having a faith ethos.
Beyond this, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised some important general points, in particular about recognising the importance of teachers. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and others, that that is the key to a good education. We have accepted in full the STRB’s recommendation of a 3.5% uplift in the minimum and maximum of the main pay range—one of the largest increases in 10 years. Last year we published a workload reduction toolkit, and we continue to work extensively with the unions and Ofsted to challenge and remove unhelpful practices that create this unnecessary workload. For me that is the most important issue: most teachers do not feel underpaid but do feel that they are put upon with a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. That is one of my priorities.
We are also working with Ofsted to produce a new inspection framework. A consultation document will be issued in the next few weeks. The framework challenges the senior leadership teams, during inspections, on the workload that they are imposing on their teachers.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised the issue of structures versus standards.
The Earl of Listowel
I welcome what the Minister says about workload, but my strong sense, gained from many people working in the field, is that the emphasis on Ofsted, and the threat that a head teacher may lose their job—and career—over a negative Ofsted report, is too harsh. We need to challenge people but also to get the balance right. I am, therefore, not completely reassured by what the Minister has just said about the framework.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Earl is right in saying that in this country Ofsted seems to command more influence in the sector than happens in other countries. This is a cultural issue, and one of the first things my Secretary of State did when he arrived last year was to produce a video that showed him and the Ofsted chief inspector on a panel trying to slaughter some of the myths about inspection outcomes and so on. It is a cultural issue that we will not be able to deal with overnight. However, I accept his concern.
I am conscious that I am running out of time. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is correct: we have cancelled some projects during the pre-opening process. In my view this demonstrates our rigour in ensuring that the quality bar is kept high. The point made by the noble Baroness about good governance is also correct. As the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said, however, 50% more free schools have achieved “outstanding” judgments than the average in the state school system—so something must be going right.
Of course, along the way not everything has gone right, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, among other noble Lords, mentioned. We have closed some 13 free schools, seven UTCs and 21 studio schools, and where failures occur we take swift and decisive action. I agree with my noble friend Lord Popat that we cannot shy away from failure and that we should address it and learn lessons from it.
I finish by quoting the motto of the academy trust of my noble friend Lord Nash: “Libertas Per Cultum”—freedom through education. Education provides the stepping-stone to improving people’s lives. Free schools play an increasing role in that work.
Lord Winston
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I do not want to extend the debate beyond the time allotted. Listening to it, however, is one of my PhD students who is a qualified teacher with a Cambridge degree. He is evaluating some of our work. It seems to me that we need to be evaluating not just entry to Oxford and Cambridge but the wider issue of the scientific and cultural capital of school leavers who may not go to Russell group universities such as the one where I teach. This is not a party-political thing for me—I do not go to schools as a member of the Labour Party but as someone who wants to help people have aspirations. I hope that we can persuade the Minister to say how we can look at the metrics on things that do not involve merely exam results, because education is so much more important than that. I hope that we can collaborate in that.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord’s PhD student if that would be helpful in pushing the discussion on. All noble Lords present, particularly on this side, got into this for no other reason than to improve the quality of educational outcomes and the lives of the less advantaged people in our society. We all share that passion. We will have vigorous debates about how it works, but I am absolutely up for learning from the mistakes we have made. Some schools have closed. We backed some of the wrong promoters in the early stages and we have learned from that and moved on. Therefore, if the work that the noble Lord’s PhD student is doing can shed any more light on how we can improve going forward, I would be delighted to be part of that.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I have greatly enjoyed today’s debate. As always, I found myself agreeing with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, although I struggle to accept criticism about costs—the same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Watson—bearing in mind the many examples of profligacy that we found in the education system when we took over in 2010, including the Building Schools for the Future programme, which ran, by some estimates, £10 billion over budget. People in glass houses, as the saying goes.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about changes to the free schools programme, new products and new ideas evolve and change. As she said, the key is to create good schools. As she also said, perhaps the programme should evolve further to be, in some cases, more prescriptive. I agree entirely with her and my noble friend Lord Hill that sometimes we are far too focused on structures. However, I think that structures are important. As I think Tony Blair said, unless you get the structure right, you cannot move on. However, I think that the noble Baroness missed off her list of what makes a good school two very important points: what is taught and how it is taught—which leads me back to my point about prescription.
It was very good to hear from my noble friend Lord Harris. As my noble friend Lord Hill said, his role in education in this country has been truly transformational. I was very glad to hear him mention Sir Dan Moynihan, who runs the Harris Federation extremely well. He also mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, without whose help none of us involved in schools in this way could be here. I was interested to hear from my noble friend Lord Kirkham about his involvement with the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and the Outward Bound Trust—organisations that schools in my academy group engage with actively. Evidence from the United States is quite clear that the single most important experience for raising pupils’ confidence and self-esteem is Outward Bound trips.
It was kind of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to say what he did about staying-put arrangements for children or young people in fostering after the age of 18, because that was in fact entirely thanks to him and his perseverance. He badgered the Government endlessly on this point and that resulted in my going to see Michael Gove. This was at a time when we were trying to recover from the dreadful economic mess we had inherited, saving money wherever we could. I explained to Michael Gove why I thought this was a good idea but said that it would cost £25 million a year. However, it took him less than a minute to see the sense of it and he agreed to it. My noble friends Lord Polak and Lord Hill paid tribute to my right honourable friend Michael Gove. In this instance, he again showed that he is a truly principled politician who is also prepared to be highly action-orientated.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to Imperial College’s outreach programme, which I know from personal experience does great work. I thought that his point about the importance of non-scientists understanding science was extremely well made—and I say that as someone who went through his entire education studying no biology at all.
A number of noble Lords opposite mentioned failure. Perhaps I may split the programme between free schools, pure free schools, UTCs and studio schools. In free schools there have been very few failures—although, as the Minister said, we are keen to learn from those there have been—and a great many successes. It is true that there have been many closures of UTCs and, in particular, studio schools—but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said to me when we took T-levels through your Lordships’ House, we desperately need to improve technical education in this country. That is a very difficult challenge. Successive Governments on both sides have tried and failed. We need to persevere and learn from our mistakes but stick at it.
My noble friend Lord Polak mentioned his involvement in a number of free schools. I know from personal experience that his help has been invaluable. I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Popat mention my noble friend Baroness Evans’s and the New Schools Network’s central and very important involvement in the free schools programme.
It was very good to see the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on such good form. I too always enjoy our contests. I was a little disappointed to hear how negative he is about the ideology of the free schools programme, including the statement that free schools have driven a coach and horses through the sensible planning of new school places. At least we have a policy on this. As my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy pointed out, the Labour Government had no policy whatever for new places, despite presiding over 13 years of uncontrolled immigration. In fact, they cut the number of places. I will forgive him for his comments, as he is a Marxist by his own admission. He invited me to read up a bit more on Marxism. I would be very grateful, in a spirit of mutual open-mindedness, if he could send me a reading list.
I greatly enjoyed today’s debate and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
Western Balkans
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Helic
That the Grand Committee takes note of developments in the Western Balkans and the threat posed by instability and insecurity in that region.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak deeply and sadly conscious of the absence of the late Lord Ashdown. In my experience, there is no one in Parliament or in our excellent Foreign and Commonwealth Office who could match the breadth of his experience and knowledge of the western Balkans. During the Bosnian War in the 1990s, most politicians, including some from my own party, pontificated from a distance. Lord Ashdown went in and out of Sarajevo during the longest siege in modern history, across a risky mountain route and through a tunnel burrowed into the city. As the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen put it:
“He used his own eyes and ears to work out the war’s rights and wrongs”.
When he warned successive British Governments, as he did over many years, about the danger of disengaging from the region, he did so with the authority of being the former High Representative to Bosnia-Herzegovina who presided over the most successful years in the country’s post-war history.
It was down to Lord Ashdown’s courage, determination and diplomatic skill that Bosnia managed to recover from the most savage of wars, soaked in the blood of war crimes, genocide, organised mass rape and killing on a scale not seen in Europe since the Second World War. As high representative, Lord Ashdown successfully established a state-wide military and a unified police command and supervised the establishment of the Bosnian judicial system. He oversaw the establishment of a single-state intelligence structure under parliamentary oversight, a unified customs service and an expanded Council of Ministers. He was not afraid to look the local and regional politicians in the eye and challenge them. As a result, Bosnia has outlived people such as Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and Croatian President Franjo Tudman who sought to dismember the country on ethnic lines and Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić and others who reside in prison cells in The Hague today. When I first applied for this debate a few months ago, Lord Ashdown and I spoke about it, and he immediately agreed that he would speak. I shall greatly miss his wisdom and his friendship, today and in the years to come.
The western Balkans have gone through an extraordinary transformation in the past 20 years. Slovenia and Croatia have joined NATO and the EU. Albania and Montenegro are NATO member states, and Serbia has EU candidate status. Kosovo has obtained independence and survived an active campaign to delegitimise it. Bosnia has held together despite continued efforts to break up the country—a danger I will return to. Perhaps as a result of this apparent progress, we have treated the region as a lesser priority in foreign and security policy. In the EU, in particular, there has been a consensus that regional problems should be left to regional leaders, ignoring the fact that many of those leaders say one thing in Washington, London and Brussels but quite another when speaking to their local audiences and carrying out their policies.
The EU is divided internally on policy towards the western Balkans and diplomatic expertise on the region has been hollowed out. The US appears to be largely disengaged, and while I welcome our Government’s hosting of the western Balkans summit last year, in place of transatlantic unity and leadership and a long-term strategy towards the region, at the international level as a whole we see only tactical moves without a clear plan or vision.
I returned from the region on Tuesday evening feeling more concerned than ever about local trends. Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Serbia have more than 50% youth unemployment. Across the region, young people are leaving in hundreds of thousands, looking for a better future, particularly in Germany which is harvesting young, educated and able graduates who see little hope of success and security under their political leaders at home.
From Albania to Kosovo, Macedonia to Serbia, Montenegro to Bosnia and Croatia to Slovenia, Russia is seeking to gain influence in the region and peel it away from the western alliance. The Putin regime has never accepted the post-Cold War settlement in Europe. Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine are the most visible example of this, but we should be equally concerned about its policies towards the Balkan states, where there is evidence of Russian disinformation campaigns and funding of political organisations and candidates and, in the case of Montenegro, an alleged Russian-backed coup attempt. Let us also not forget the recent allegations of Russian interference in the Greece-Macedonian negotiations over the name issue.
Negative outside influence in the region is not confined to Russia. Turkey is seeking to recreate the influence amongst Muslim populations that it lost centuries ago. Chinese and Gulf investments are emboldening corrupt forces and distorting local politics. We see the emergence of radicalisation as well as right-wing militarism in Muslim foreign fighters from the region joining ISIS in Syria and Iraq and in Orthodox Christian radicals fighting for Russia in Ukraine.
Serbia continues to choke Kosovo’s future by urging countries to derecognise its statehood and by blocking its entry into international institutions. In this regard, I find it extraordinarily short-sighted that EU-sponsored plans for changes to the border between Kosovo and Serbia are seriously being contemplated. They fly in the face of 20 years of European and United States policy that the map of the western Balkans is finished and ignore the high probability that any such agreement would be used as a pretext to justify the redrawing of borders in the region and beyond. I hope the Minister can clarify the UK’s position on this proposal and shed light on whether the Government really believe that it is possible to change the border between Serbia and Kosovo without having an immediate and long-term impact elsewhere, for instance in Bosnia, Georgia, Ukraine or the Baltics.
Sadly Serbia, and to a lesser extent Croatia, are still enabling their proxies in Bosnia to undermine the country’s sovereignty, Croatia by encouraging the HDZ party to create a third, Croat, entity within the federation and using its membership of the EU to champion that, an enterprise that is fully supported by Russia, presumably because of its potential to contribute to the dissolution of the country, and Serbia by supporting secessionists in the smaller Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska. Yesterday Republika Srpska celebrated so-called statehood day: the date in 1992 when, by declaring their own state, Bosnian Serbs triggered the devastating four-year war that killed more than 100,000 people and left millions displaced. Even though Bosnia’s constitutional court declared that unconstitutional in a ruling in 2015, celebrations were held, presided over by the entity’s president, whose declared policy is for the entity to eventually break away from Bosnia and join Serbia. The celebrations were attended by the Prime Minister and Defence Minister of Serbia, while Serbia’s President sent a congratulatory letter. There is no doubt about the signal this sends: a country that aspires to EU membership, Serbia, is directly undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a neighbouring country. Moreover, it is doing so in the company of Russia, whose ambassador to Bosnia also attended the event, along with the Russian paramilitary unit beloved of President Putin, the so-called Night Wolves who have reportedly fought in Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimea and the occupation of eastern Ukraine. Ahead of the parliamentary parade, Serbia’s Prime Minister received the Order of the Republika Srpska, previously granted to convicted war criminals Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić, Plavšić and Šešelj.
During Lord Ashdown’s tenure in Bosnia, any individual who challenged the Dayton peace accord in the way this event did would have been sanctioned through the Bonn powers attached to the office of the high representative. Today, there has not even been a statement from the EU, the United States, or indeed our own Government. I hope the Minister can share his department’s analysis of these events and indicate what plans there are to respond diplomatically with our European partners? I fear that our silence is read as a green light for further actions by some leaders in the region who are pushing their backward nationalist agenda in this way, keeping the region in a state of permanent insecurity and tension and holding hostage the future of millions of young people.
I have spoken at some length about Bosnia because every single problem that affects countries in the region is brought together and magnified in this country, and it remains the most dangerous potential flashpoint, along with the border situation in Kosovo. The effectiveness of our policy towards the western Balkans should be judged by whether it secures or allows the further destabilisation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the words of Lord Ashdown in the debate last May:
“We are acting as the unwitting deliverers of the policies of Tudman, Mladić, Karadžić and Milošević—by mistake; we do not mean to, but we are sleep-walking into it”.—[Official Report, 24/5/18; col. 1128.]
I welcome the Government’s effort to help and to keep a focus on the region even as our diplomatic energy is consumed by Brexit, but this alone is not going to be enough to reverse these negative trends. Regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU, we cannot afford the Balkans to be unstable, or dominated by the Russian state or to be a region marked by drugs, guns or people trafficking and radicalisation.
What I hope to see is Brussels, London and Washington acting as one with a well-developed strategy for the whole region. This should include: rolling back Russian influence; making clear that the redrawing of the map of the region is over; leaving no doubt that any efforts to undermine the sovereignty of any country in the region will not be tolerated; and showing our determination not to shirk our responsibility to impose sanctions on those who undermine peace agreements there. Specifically in regard to Bosnia, we ought to make clear that the Office of the High Representative will be supported, including in the exercise of the Bonn powers, until the country is irreversibly on the path to NATO and EU membership.
I urge that, as part of our new strategy, we should support young people across the region in the development of civil society, democratic parties and institutions that can guarantee the rights of all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. The lesson of Lord Ashdown’s tenure in Bosnia, and indeed of our foreign policy over the past 20 years, is that pre-emptive diplomacy to prevent conflict and address insecurity is manifestly in our national interest, and that the investment needed to deter violence or insecurity is a fraction of what is needed to respond after the event.
I sincerely hope that the Government will take the lessons of history to heart and will work with the United States and their partners and allies in Europe and the region to pursue a robust, reinvigorated long-term strategy for the western Balkans. I also hope that the Minister will consider ways in which we could recognise Lord Ashdown’s legacy, not only by building upon what he has done but, for instance, by naming the Government’s fellowship programme for young leaders in the region in his name and in his memory. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests, particularly my chairmanship of the European Leadership Network. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for securing this debate, for the Motion, and for her opening speech, which she delivered with passion and obvious knowledge. She has already generated sufficient questions for the Minister to spend his 20 minutes of summing up in responding to them; they are interesting, challenging questions. I am grateful to her for the information she has imparted to me. I do not make this speech suggesting in any way that I have any expertise about the western Balkans but I have a strong interest in this debate, as I will come to in a moment.
I associate myself entirely with the words of tribute to the late Lord Ashdown. He had a very close relationship with Tony Blair, who was the Prime Minister when I was first elected to Parliament. Although he was close to many of my colleagues in the Labour Party, I did not then have the benefit of having been in Parliament long enough to establish that relationship with him. I regret that I did not get to know him as well as I would have liked. Having read and heard many tributes to him recently, I have in my head—from my reading and from others’ appreciation of him—a man of outstanding energy, courage, loyalty, generosity and sense of duty. So I am happy to be associated with the noble Baroness’s words of tribute to him and I too hope that our policy in the longer term in relation to the western Balkans will be a monument to his contribution to the stability of that region. He deserves no less.
I spent this morning with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, at the Royal College of Defence Studies, contributing to a course on strategy and strategy-making. It was a course for international military officers including, interestingly, an officer from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Among other things, we were asked to explain how in that realm of strategy, from our experiences, conflicting conditions surrounding strategic decisions can survive domestic politics. That is a significant challenge, where there is competition domestically for resources against foreign policy, military deployment, the use of resource for nation-building, or whatever.
From my own knowledge of the consequences of a destabilised western Balkans—the matters which the noble Baroness identified, relating to guns, drugs, people trafficking and money laundering—it is incredibly easy to explain to the people of the United Kingdom why that should be a priority for us. This problem comes to our borders and our communities. It is manifestly there, not just in the shadowy parts of our communities in cities but also to some degree in the City of London and businesses in this country. It undermines our way of life, and for those selfish reasons rather than for others, we have a collective duty to engage and to ensure that the people of the western Balkans can be released from that tyranny, wherever it comes from.
I put my name down to speak in this debate because in the run-up to the London summit, on the 27 and 28 June last year, the European Leadership Network, which I chair, hosted a round-table discussion here in the House of Lords under the co-chairmanship of myself, a member of the European Leadership Network and the former Albanian Defence Minister, Fatmir Mediu. He was the Defence Minister of Albania at the same time as I was the Secretary of State for Defence here in the United Kingdom, and—entirely coincidentally—at that point Albania joined NATO. I am therefore, in his mind, associated with Albania’s membership of NATO, which is important and which he is very proud of. We have kept in close contact, and this round-table discussion was at his inspiration. I co-chaired it with him, and I can tell noble Lords that our visitors who attended that meeting, which brought together former and serving officials from most Balkan countries, ambassadors and representatives of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, as well as UK parliamentarians, were all delighted to be here in the House of Lords. I observed that that environment caused them to engage with one another in a way that I suspect would have been more difficult for them in other environments. I attend quite a lot of multilateral, Euro-Atlantic meetings in the security environment. Such engagement between parliamentarians, when Members of our Parliament are involved, is motivating for a significant number of our visitors, and we should do much more of it. We should deploy this soft power much more extensively in driving our foreign policy agenda.
All the participants in that round table agreed that local customs and culture and shared values united the region far more than the issues that set their people and countries apart. Several speakers also voiced their hope that their history would not define the future of the western Balkans and the outlook for that region, which, they observed, had significantly improved over the past 12 months despite the manifest challenges that the noble Baroness set out clearly and knows well—probably better than most of us in this Room. During the discussion, the presenters also highlighted the two main goals for the region. I do not think it will surprise anyone that they were NATO and EU membership and full integration into the Euro-Atlantic community. They argue that this will serve as a binding force not only between the countries of the western Balkans and the rest of Europe but between the states in the region, and it would help overcome the internal polarisation.
While the role and contribution of the EU were celebrated by participants, several people also voiced their concerns that the European Union may choose to treat the integration projects as a series of boxes to be ticked rather than a goal to be pursued. The main challenge they identified concerned the lack of leadership and capacity in Brussels for substantial change. They said that if partners could or would not offer better incentives for the political leaders in the region, constituents in the accession and pre-accession countries could come to populism and the offer of more radical solutions to their concerns. The increasing influence of Russia and Turkey was mentioned in some detail as a by-product of the lack of European strategic direction and energy in the day-to-day operations with the western Balkans. Everyone acknowledged the difficult environment in which the EU needs to address and square the concerns of its own citizens and those who aspire to be its citizens. However, it was also mentioned that,
“the Euro-Atlantic community must fill the vacuum”—
of political direction and vision—
“or others will”.
That is a direct quotation.
From this summit there came a number of action points. I shall share just those that relate to security, which is the focus of this debate. External players are clearly a significant concern for the region and its representatives. Speakers saw most external actors as merely pursuing their own national interests, to the detriment of those of the region. Religion, which is deeply woven into these societies, is being manipulated and the potential for extremism to spread is increasing. Regional countries must therefore increase their national resilience. Europe and partners across the Atlantic have a role to play in that, particularly with regard to sharing of lessons learned and best practice.
Returning foreign fighters are another threat. Sharing intelligence data, even at a regional level, can substantially improve current operations, but the region perhaps has something to teach the rest of Europe about de-radicalisation and reintegration of people back into communities. Thus it would be helpful to establish in the region an academy on preventing violent extremism. There are also positive and negative lessons to be drawn from the experience of UNPRODEF stabilisation.
Finally, NATO is seen to have a stabilising role to play. Some experts suggested that it should immediately offer membership to Macedonia—although that has moved on—a membership action plan to Bosnia-Herzegovina and participation in the Partnership for Peace for Kosovo. It should also consider the establishment of a regional Partnership for Peace forum where countries can share experiences and best practice.
Since then, of course, the summit has taken place. In anticipation of this debate I read the summary of the report of that summit and it is perfectly clear to me that the UK was unanimously considered to be an important actor in the set of ambitions that these countries have. They all wanted to see the United Kingdom championing this trajectory and were looking forward to the UK continuing to champion EU accession for the western Balkans six. I understand that the Government confirmed at the London summit that they would continue to do this even after Brexit. I was struck by some interesting words in the summary. Significantly, a risk is identified,
“that UK leverage in the region will be reduced if it is no longer involved in the EU accession process”.
The summit called on the Government,
“to explain its vision for an independent UK role in the Western Balkans, to clarify what it wants to achieve in the region and to explain how it plans to get there … to push for the Summit to adopt a robust set of commitments that can make a real difference in the Western Balkans”.
In short, it seems that we have not yet satisfied the question of how the United Kingdom intends to continue to play that role when it is no longer a member of the European Union. That is my most important question to the Minister.
In summary, I read with interest the speech delivered by Ambassador Kemp at the western Balkans Foreign Ministers’ meeting in November, which was published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. I congratulate the Government on following through with a set of significant commitments, particularly in engagement on security. These can be read on the website; I do not intend to read them out. But they seem to be a start, rather than something that would draw to conclusion the stability and security that are necessary for these countries. While I unequivocally commend the Government on the steps they have taken, there are still significant challenges and these, as I said earlier in my speech, will have a significant effect on the sustained security of our own citizens here in the United Kingdom. This is a collective ambition and I hope that more can be done.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for this debate, which, sadly, is timely and appropriate. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to tell your Lordships’ House about an event that took place in Sarajevo on 27 December. Joseph Ingram wrote a report of it and he said this. Citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina held a spontaneous commemorative service in the “iconic, reconstructed city hall”. The hall was,
“filled to capacity, and despite being nationally televised, had people lined up outside trying to be part of it. The ‘Mothers of Srebrenica’, a group that represents survivors of the most horrific massacre of innocent civilians on European soil since World War Two, had announced that they too intend to honour the work of this extraordinary human being”.
The event was dedicated to one man. He was born in India. He grew up as a lad in Northern Ireland. He left school, joined the marines and became a captain, a diplomat and spy. Then he gave up everything and, after a period on the dole, went on to become a youth worker and eventually the gallant MP for Yeovil. In this House, we knew him as Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, but he was always Paddy.
He had a wide range of interests. He had forgotten more languages than most of us have ever learned. He could quote the poetry of John Donne at will. He was an informed and passionate supporter of activists for democracy in Hong Kong, when nobody else took any notice, and he packed more achievements into a lifetime than most of us could imagine, but he was always first to admit that the source of his great strength was Jane. In public she was a quiet figure, but to those of us who know her she is a charming, funny and formidable woman.
I will give you one vignette which sums up both of them. Like all good leaders, Paddy used to invite people in to advise him, talk to him and argue with him. In 1992 I was one of the small group. Early one morning, he posed us the question: should I go to Bosnia? We went round the room and we all said no. We gave him all sorts of reasons why it was a really bad idea, and I left the meeting certain of only one thing. He was going to go. We all saw the TV pictures recently, but what we did not know until we read his autobiography was that he had come under fire, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, told us. But he went because he saw a group of people being treated unjustly, and he thought that he could and should do something.
Some months later, I was talking quietly to Jane at our party conference and I said to her, “It must be awful for you and the kids when he goes off on trips like that”. She said, “It is, but what is much worse is having to put up with him when they stop him going. Then he is just unbearable”. She went on to say that whenever Paddy went to the Balkans he carried thousands of letters backwards and forwards to people starved of news and desperate to know about their relatives. He never wrote about that.
From Somerset to Bosnia, from the people in the highest echelons of the UN to small groups of local Liberal Democrats, we were very privileged to walk alongside him, a remarkable man with a vision of a world in which freedom, justice and fairness exist for all in their diversity. It will be a great privilege to carry on his work.
I am pleased to say that one of the great things I got to do was to talk to Paddy a lot about the Balkans. I have been on visits recently to Kosovo and Serbia and have been to other parts of the Balkans in a private capacity. I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Kosovo. I would always come back and talk to Paddy about what I had seen, and he would give me a whole other level of understanding. It was not just his appreciation of the politics of the region but his absolute understanding of people—from the most hardened of embittered fighters to women and young people—that gave him a completely unique perspective, which he took back and forth and around the world to different policymakers. So it is with his help that I speak today.
On my trips to the region, I have been immensely impressed by our embassies. The FCO presence in the Balkans is truly remarkable. I am indebted to Denis Keefe, our ambassador in Belgrade, for this amazing tome about the complex history of British-Serbian Relations from the 18th to the 21st Centuries. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, referred time and again to the historical context in which we have to look at things. It is a long and complex history which stems from the geopolitical significance of the Balkans and the United Kingdom. It is absolutely right, as she and noble Lords said, that we hold this debate today in the knowledge that whatever happens with Brexit, the calibration of the British geopolitical standing will have a huge difference. In all the visits I have made since Brexit has been on the agenda, not just to the Balkans, there is an acute sense that people around the world understand that our place in the world will change. As a trading partner we will be different if we are not part of the EU. Others may say that we have a different place in the world, but those of us engaged in this are perhaps mistaken if we assume that we can carry on with the same sort of bilateral understanding we have had until now.
A key and central thing we need to do as a result of this debate is to ask the Government how they are going to recalibrate their relationship with third parties such as the western Balkan states in the new relationship, whatever that is, with the European Union. We cannot work on the assumption that all the agreements and good will we have had to date will continue. I took part in the civil society summit in September. I understand that the United Kingdom does and will continue to wield an immense amount of soft power. I have been tremendously impressed by the work of the British Council throughout the western Balkans. Things such as arts programmes may not appear to have a direct relationship to security, but we know they do. If we secure and cement relationships, particularly emotional relationships with young people, we are having a direct impact on the security of our nation. It is interesting for anybody who goes there to hear politicians, particularly in places such as Serbia, draw very much on the political relationships they have with Russia and that side of the world, but to look at the young people and to understand that their economic and cultural aspirations lie in Europe.
On the question of civil society and investment in it, at the summit the British Government made a commitment to continue their involvement in various programmes. I wonder whether the Minister could give more detail about this in his response. When I was in Kosovo and Serbia, two things struck me as being of the utmost importance: the role played by women in the development of business and economics, and the role of young people. One cannot but be struck by the level of unemployment among young people. If these countries are to thrive, it will be in new areas of industry and with a new approach. Investment in young people and in women will be paramount. What are the Government going to do to support women and young entrepreneurs in particular?
We all know that you cannot have security if you do not have a basic, functioning democratic structure. Much is being done—particularly through the EU—to strengthen programmes for democratic engagement, and the investment the EU has so far put into anti-corruption programmes is important. How will the UK Government continue to be involved if Brexit goes ahead? The threat is that we could become estranged from policy-setting within the European Union and take a divergent path. That would serve neither us nor the countries of the western Balkans at all well.
Finally, I believe that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is to have renewed investment. What does the Minister envisage this will bring about, particularly in relation to strengthening opposition political forces in the various parliaments? When one visits parliaments, one is keenly struck by the lack of a credible and formal opposition—not in one particular country, but in all of them. This is a tremendous weakness. It does not help with the democratic oversight of the functions of government.
I return to my friend Lord Ashdown and one of his many quotes about his time in Bosnia. By any stretch of the imagination, he achieved remarkable advances in the most difficult of circumstances. Looking back on his time dealing with men, women and young people who were severely traumatised but desperately hoping to work their way towards normality and economic advancement, he said:
“History teaches us these lessons for the interveners: leave your prejudices at home, keep your ambitions low, have enough resources to do the job, do not lose the golden hour, make security your first priority, involve the neighbours”.
My question to the Minister is how, in the shadow of Brexit, will the UK maximise its historic ties to the western Balkans and succeed in doing this?
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, we have heard a most moving tribute to Lord Ashdown. I want to be the first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for sharing that with us.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. How fortunate we are that she has brought so much valuable experience of the Balkans to this House. This is a region which deserves special attention in this country. It is not a faraway place; in fact, it remains one of the world’s flashpoints, and we are one of the nations responsible for its stability and security. The noble Baroness mentioned the threats from Russia and Serbia in that region and was focusing on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I can think of no one except the late Lord Ashdown who has voiced such a concern more than once, and we all remember the warnings that he gave us in previous debates about NATO and the Balkans.
I was a neighbour of Paddy Ashdown. We used to meet at Crewkerne station; he preferred it to Yeovil, I think, as it was a bit quieter. I admired his enthusiasm and of course his success as a parliamentarian. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned his service in Hong Kong. He continued to maintain an interest in human rights in Hong Kong. My noble friend Lord Alton wanted me to say specifically that Lord Ashdown was patron of Hong Kong Watch alongside my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Patten.
We need to act on the warnings from Lord Ashdown and others but only if we continue to co-ordinate carefully with our European allies after we leave the EU, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said. I have to mention that I travelled alongside her to Kosovo not very long ago, and she is a most persistent questioner of Ministers, not just here but in the Balkans, so I am sure she will get back there.
Essentially, the warnings were about the power of nationhood. We in this island, even with our long history of four nations, can hardly appreciate the strength of feeling between ethnic groups that fought each other only in the last generation. Srebrenica remains a symbol of the worst genocide imaginable in our lifetime, and that community is still devastated and scarcely able to rebuild, although some individuals and charities have done extremely well. Many other towns, such as Mitrovica in Kosovo, which we have visited, straddle a fault-line that will need patching for many years to come if present boundaries are to be maintained.
So we say that only NATO and its related forces can guarantee peace, and only the EU can bring new ideas that should ensure that this peace will endure. We say all that, yet we know the limits of those guarantees and of our outreach.
I will focus today on the concept of EU enlargement, a concept that many of us hope will not be forgotten during Brexit. I have tabled a short debate which will explore our own Government’s present attitude, but we need to look back to the beginning. The UK was one of the principal architects of enlargement within the EU, and it has consistently supported the western Balkans. In fact, our political parties under John Major and Tony Blair had almost formed a consensus on this: that it was important for the EU to embrace a wider Europe, and that was the kind of Europe that suited us.
Freedom of movement and migration became plus factors within our economic policy, and we felt almost closer to the new entrants from eastern Europe than to the growing attempts at unity among the founder members and the eurozone countries as a whole. This in turn has led to an expectation in the region of our continuing involvement, which remains today.
These perceptions were assisted by the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the process of so-called democratisation: the application of the EU’s Copenhagen principles such as the rule of law, human rights and good governance. But there was an underlying business motive too, mixed with pure avarice. We all know examples of this: the potential for western Europe to pour investment into the east regardless of what system was there or what was replacing it, to turn decades of communist philosophy into productive business almost overnight.
It is easy to look back and to blame President Putin for wrecking this dream, but as our own EU sub-committee pointed out some time ago, if Russia now looks like the spoiler, it was the EU that rushed headlong into a region that required a lot more careful planning and handling than was realised in Brussels. Ukraine and Crimea became the wake-up call that brought Europe to a sudden halt. Now we seem to have the old battle lines of a residual Soviet empire to confront all over again.
The idea of enlargement has been discredited, I think quite unfairly, because it remains a sensible policy provided we take it much more carefully and seriously. We have to recognise that ambitious projects like EULEX in Kosovo and the anti-corruption programme in Ukraine may not fit into those societies as easily as we expected. We and the EU have already had to rethink the justice chapters in new member countries like Bulgaria and Romania. Even in the older states like Hungary we have to recognise the effects of migration and the rise of what we call the right wing. They express the fear that many majority and minority communities have of being overrun, wherever they are. In short, Brussels is having to contain the uncontainable and somehow it has to reconcile the extremes.
Ethnic tensions have become such an issue in the western Balkans that there is even an attempt to redraw boundaries. The Presidents of Serbia and Kosovo have been discussing it for most of the past year and more recently in Alpbach, but without any conclusion. The Commission is quite rightly resisting this because it could easily bring more conflagration.
Meanwhile, there is NATO, which has had a much better press than the EU in the Balkans because its activities are more visible and measurable. Open conflict has been avoided so far. Joint exercises all the way from Riga down to Odessa, even with Serbia, have brought confidence.
More difficult has been the confrontation of Moscow’s insidious dirty tricks, most of them mentioned already by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. There are reports of arms supplies to militant groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the coup in Montenegro, the Serbian propaganda train in Kosovo, the possible subversion of the new agreement on North Macedonia and frozen conflicts all around the Black Sea. Russia needs to keep these in play to make up for its own strategic inadequacies. However, we must be thankful that the OSCE, mentioned in earlier debates, is keeping a close watch on all of this, especially the Ukraine conflict.
It is fair to say that our own parliamentarians have shown a strong interest in the region. I attended part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s recent conference in Portcullis House as a member of its executive committee and I was very impressed by the quality of contributions from the Balkan delegates, many of them women who are current or former Ministers. We have also had a series of reports in Parliament, from the International Relations Committee in January and most recently from the Foreign Affairs Committee. HMG’s responses to these reports show that there remains a very real commitment to the region and to, for example, increased security via the Berlin process, which was one of the achievements of the western Balkans summit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, asked for a well-developed strategy. However, leaving the EU is bound to reduce any direct diplomatic influence we have, for example in the conditions surrounding membership applications. We have yet to see whether, in the next stage of negotiation in April, we can maintain our position in a new form of partnership. That is yet to be revealed. As a remainer, I can only wish the FCO well in this vital endeavour.
Talking of membership applications, I want to ask the Minister something, although he may not have the answer at the moment. Why have we gone back on Kosovo’s visa liberalisation? Are we making every effort through the Foreign Office and the EU while we are still members to facilitate that? It is going backwards, not forwards.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Helic on securing this debate. It certainly gives my noble friend the Minister an opportunity to update the House today on what progress has been made in fulfilling the commitments made at the Western Balkans Summit last year, to set out how the UK should respond to the instability and insecurity in the region at a time when we edge ever closer to leaving the European Union—as other noble Lords have pointed out—and to set out our policy on our place in a post-Brexit world.
My noble friend Lady Helic is indeed an expert in such matters. I would say that she is the expert if it were not for the fact that I still remember Lord Ashdown. Of course I would remember him, not least because in opening his own debate on Bosnia and Herzegovina back in October 2014, he paid tribute to my noble friend for her knowledge and courage. In responding to that debate, I was very much aware of his passionate commitment to resolving seemingly insolvable challenges. He was a very brave guy, as he was when he held the office of high representative. One only had to see the levels of security walking with him round the corridors here after he left that office to realise what he went through. He was a sharp critic of the 1995 Dayton settlement, which he observed was good for a cessation of violence but not for creating sustainable governance. I valued his support when we were in coalition together. I was always aware of Captain Ashdown. He was always courteous but boy, could he chivvy and get his way. I miss him.
As my noble friend Lady Helic said, there has been some overall progress across the western Balkans in meeting the challenges they face. Croatia is a member of the EU. Serbia is an accession country. Montenegro and Albania are NATO member states. Reflecting on what the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said earlier, when I visited Albania last year as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, politicians from the entire political spectrum made sure that we knew how proud they are of their active NATO membership and how much it means to them.
However, a glance at the BBC and regional newspaper headlines over the past couple of weeks shows that Lord Ashdown was justified in his reservations about the future. The headlines are as follows: “Thousands march against Serbian leader”; “Demonstrators rally for the fifth week across Serbia to protest against President Vucic”; “Kosovo’s army dreamers enrage their Serbian neighbours” by voting to create an army; and “Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has sacked half his cabinet in response to the massive student protests” against his policies. Clearly, as we are aware, significant challenges face Governments across the western Balkans.
The region still suffers from the legacy of the instability of the 1990s. Some political leaders seem intent on pursuing their objectives from that time, not through open fighting but through more subversive political and diplomatic means, including calls for redrawing national borders and secessionism. That would indeed destabilise the region. I was therefore pleased to see my noble friend the Minister’s commitment in his Statement to the House on 24 May:
“We do not support the redrawing of any borders”—
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example—
“and consider any attempts to secede unilaterally or abolish any entities to be unacceptable”.—[Official Report, 24/5/18; col. 1142.]
I hope that he will be able to repeat those commitments today and that the Government take the same view about Serbia’s attempts to redraw its borders with Kosovo.
I note that Lord Ashdown signed an open letter last August urging Federica Mogherini not to support the land-swap in Kosovo. What has happened with that? Have the UK Government talked to Mogherini about it and got the EU’s view? I agree that we need clarification on it.
Some EU member states’ refusal even to recognise Kosovo as a state independent of Serbia remains a threat to the stability of the region. What conversations have our Government had recently with Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus, Romania and Greece on this? They are the refusers.
Candidate countries see seeking membership of the EU as a way of encouraging reform to corrupt practices. Kosovo has a long-standing aspiration not only to join the EU but to join NATO. However, NATO membership is a problem. Although co-operation would bring security to Kosovo and others in the region, four members of NATO do not recognise Kosovo as a state. Therefore, membership negotiations cannot get off the starting blocks. Have the Government talked to those countries in NATO which have refused to accept Kosovo as a state? These are Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain.
I have visited the countries across the western Balkans over the last five years, mostly as a Minister but also as a tourist and, more recently, as a Back-Bencher. I recall a comment made by Lord Ashdown—that the western Balkans get under your skin. I understand exactly what he meant. We really care about them.
I was able to learn more about the support and encouragement that the UK Government have given over such a long time to the region, as well as the need to tackle the deep-rooted governance challenges and root out corruption. It is not only in government and business but also in the judiciary. I know we have done work in reforming the judiciary. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has already referred to EULEX. In advance of the Balkan summit in the UK last year, our Foreign Secretary gave a commitment that the UK,
“will include taking forward initiatives … to tackle corruption and serious organised crime”.
Will my noble friend the Minister update the House today on progress made on those initiatives in particular?
Before talking about the real question of what we do next, I cannot leave consideration of the region without raising the vital matter of the impact of conflict-related sexual violence, which took place en masse in the 1990s. The stigma that surrounds wartime rape and the isolation of victims—in their local environment and even within their own families—have left so many restricted from participating in civil society, economically and culturally. This is simply not conducive to social stability.
I was honoured to be the Prime Minister’s special representative on the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative. I pay tribute to the survivors for their courage and dignity. Throughout my time there, it was a humbling experience to listen to their life stories and the horrors they had endured. I shall never forget them, any of them.
I was reassured when my noble friend the Minister was appointed to that position when I moved to the Department for Exiting the European Union. He has shown exemplary leadership. I thank him for that. I would be grateful if he could update the House today on the UK’s work on the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative across the Balkans, where the Government’s work has shown the Foreign Office’s importance as lead department on the initiative, working in co-operation with the Ministry of Defence and, in other countries that are eligible for ODA, with DfID.
I was a little surprised last weekend—to put it gently—to read the report by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on his visit to South Sudan. I welcomed his visit. I thought it was great that he went to Juba, Malakal and Bentiu. But when he gave his interview, he said that instead of seeing the Foreign Office leading on this initiative:
“I see defence as the department leading on this across government and internationally”.
Can my noble friend the Minister clarify who is in the lead? It matters to know who, otherwise you cannot deliver things successfully.
The stability of the region is vital to the UK for the clear reasons set out by our ambassador to Montenegro, Alison Kemp. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the fact that she made a speech in which she said that as part of our history we have learned that if you have instability there, it is a danger to us directly. People on the doorstep understand that. It really matters. It is vital that we work to assist countries in the region to be stable and to help them on their Euro-Atlantic path. That is the way forward.
At the moment our Foreign Secretary is looking very much at our position in the world post Brexit. Last week, he was in Singapore and he set out his vision for the future. He emphasised that Britain’s connections across the world are stronger than any other nation of comparable size or wealth. He said:
“Those connections are why Britain’s post-Brexit role should be to act as an invisible chain linking together the democracies of the world”,
in support of the international rules-based order. He went on to say that the UK,
“is at a pivotal historic moment, the global balance of power is shifting once more and post-Brexit our place within it … as well”.
Of course, the question from all of us is: against that background of the future, within that narrative, where lies our approach to the western Balkans?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on getting this debate with such perfect timing. It is almost one year to the day after your Lordships’ International Relations Committee, on which she, I and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, serve, produced a report on the west Balkans—a report I suggest has stayed the test of time reasonably well. It is an excellent launch pad for our debate.
The debate is also exceptionally timely because it provides an opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Ashdown, whose contribution to peace and stability in the Balkans was so outstanding. I remember when Paddy Ashdown came to New York in 1994, when I was the UK representative on the Security Council, and told me in no uncertain terms—he did not do uncertain—that Her Majesty’s Government’s policy was no good and needed to be far more robust towards the Bosnian Serbs and their backers in Belgrade. He was right, as the appalling events at Srebrenica the following year demonstrated. At that time, his own great contribution still lay in the future. Now that he is no longer with us, it must not be forgotten.
In looking at the west Balkans, I suggest we need to steer somewhere between the twin extremes of complacency and excessive angst about the situation there. Complacency and neglect are certainly not good policy guides in the Balkans, even if you leave to one side the fact that those two characteristics managed to contribute to three wars in the last century, which is rather a large score. There is plenty too to worry about in the Balkans now: Bosnia is making little progress, if any, towards viable statehood; Macedonia’s laudable deal to bring to an end the dispute with Greece over its name is hanging by a thread; Montenegro is being destabilised by Russian meddling; and Kosovo is an unhealed wound. In all these countries, you have corruption, serious international crime networks, state capture, in some cases, and massive emigration by the best and brightest who do not feel that their own countries offer them enough opportunities. All those factors sap the energy of each state in the region to make a better future for its citizens.
What needs to be done? First, the aspirations of all these countries to join the EU and NATO—of course, Serbia does not want that—should be encouraged in a rigorous but active way. Alas, we are no longer well placed to do that as far as the EU is concerned—yet another reason to deplore and question the wisdom of our leaving the EU. That subject is being discussed in the main Chamber at great length so I will not go on about it now.
Secondly, we need to be vigilant about outside meddling in the region. This has always been a factor, and was a huge factor in the triggering of those three wars that disfigured the western Balkans, killed so many people there and destroyed so much prosperity. Obviously, one meddler we have to watch very closely is Russia, but also, perhaps a little more insidiously, China, which seems to be looking to use investments in the region as a back-door influence on EU decision-making.
Thirdly, we should help all those in the region whose policies focus on strengthening freedom of speech, the rule of law and genuine democracy. Fourthly—I join with others who have said this—we should be cautious about encouraging what I would call magic-potion solutions with land swaps. Most recently, suggestions were made by the presidents of Serbia and Kosovo. I think that some in the West—particularly in Washington—were a bit quick off the mark in thinking that was a good idea. That solution is resisted by many, not only in Serbia and Kosovo; we in the International Relations Committee were visited recently by parliamentarians from all-party groups in Pristina, who also thought that it was a rotten idea. I am not sure that their president has a great deal of support when he pushes it forward. As others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, have mentioned, the risk of contagion elsewhere in the region—particularly in Bosnia— is really serious.
The most urgent and difficult task for this country is to dispel the view, to which the members of our committee who went to various parts of the Balkans when we were writing that report were exposed, that by voting to leave the EU, we are turning our backs on this region. The task of breaking out of that perception is not easy. It cannot be done just with warm words and denial. It certainly was not made any easier when the then Foreign Secretary chose to stage his resignation, “Have I Got News for You”-style, on the day of the Balkans summit and did not turn up at the summit he was meant to be presiding over. I imagine that we can consign that to the pages of history, or at least a footnote.
That issue needs close co-operation with the EU and commitment to a multi-annual programme of action in a range of areas which I and others have mentioned—an idea which first saw the light of day in the report from your Lordships’ International Relations Committee. When the Minister replies to this debate, it would be good to hear what the Government have put in hand following the west Balkans summit here in London, and what they propose for the future.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Helic for her work in the western Balkans, particularly on sexual violence. She brings an immense wealth of knowledge to this debate, not least from her own story of courage. I agree with her that the absence of Lord Ashdown from this debate is strongly felt. I know that he and the noble Baroness had a great deal of admiration for one another.
It is undeniable that the western Balkans have come a long way since the 1990s when the region was subject to some of the worst violence of the late 20th century. In the past 10 years overall prosperity in the region has begun to improve and peace has enabled many to begin rebuilding their lives and livelihoods.
We know unequivocally that safety and security are the foundations of creating prosperity for people and nations and there is a great deal of potential for the region to continue to build on this foundation, but peace has not brought the deep reconciliation and stability required for the nations and region to flourish. The absence of violence has not meant that the region is without significant challenges. It is still blighted by deep-running economic, political and social issues and despite progress the western Balkan countries still rank the lowest of the European nations on the Legatum Prosperity Index, in which I declare an interest.
As we have heard, the region remains trapped by chronic economic stagnation and the social challenges that follow, bilateral disputes, such as the independence one between Serbia and Kosovo, ethnic tensions and political issues that mean progress cannot be taken for granted. Economically, the western Balkans are seeing growth across the region at around 3.5% per year, but this growth is fragile as the region lacks the foundation for sustainable long-term economic growth. Generally across eastern Europe productivity is rising, but the western Balkans are lagging behind the rest of the region. Albania’s output per worker between 2010 and 2018 was almost half that of Croatia and Hungary, and economic complexity, levels of entrepreneurship and venture capital investment are all low compared with the rest of the region.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia have all seen their exports grow, but growing consumption and large infrastructure projects have led to more goods being imported, stagnating growth. This has inevitable consequences, as we have heard, with unemployment remaining staggeringly high across the region, particularly in Macedonia, where the rate is almost 25%.
Youth unemployment is a particular concern, with rates ranging from 30% in Montenegro to 50% in Macedonia and over 54% in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the second-highest youth unemployment rate in the world. We know the despair and hopelessness that this lack of purpose and opportunity brings, as young people face day after day of rejection by employers. This, in turn, is driving significant economic migration across the region, as people seek opportunity elsewhere. Net migration away from Albania between 2000 and 2015 stood at almost 16% of the population.
This is a problem affecting not just the young. Across the region people are losing faith in their national economies to provide the opportunities that will allow them to flourish. Some 43% of western Balkan citizens have considered emigrating. This will have long-term implications for strengthening their economies as talented people disappear.
Without the deep work of reconciliation and under the pressure of stagnating economies, ethnic tensions remain high and society is divided throughout the region, despite the passage of time since active conflict. Although officially boundaries between communities no longer exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the reality is a society divided by norms that have not changed over time. True reconciliation between communities has not taken root, added to which an estimated 220 to 330 Bosnian foreign fighters travelled to conflict zones in Iraq and Syria. When you consider that almost two-thirds of all armed conflicts that ended in the early 2000s had relapsed within five years, that shows the fragility of peace unless long-term reconciliation is built and achieved.
Why does this concern us in the UK, when we are a nation that some would argue is geographically far away from the western Balkans? If the economic, social and political instability does not motivate us to support this region of the world, then maybe the overflow on to our own streets might be enough to move us to remain committed to acting in this region.
The western Balkans countries all score very poorly on the World Bank rule of law indicators, and trust in judicial independence is poor. Coupled with weak governance in general, this has created the space for organised crime—including, as we have heard, drugs and human trafficking—to thrive. Committing to a stable western Balkans is vital for the security of Europe as a whole, but it is also key to ensuring that the results of organised crime and radicalisation do not end up on our streets.
I therefore congratulate the Government on their commitment, having almost doubled the funding for the region to £80 million in 2020-21 through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. In addition to this, the work that we are doing to strengthen the rule of law and justice sectors is a step in the right direction, but I add my question to the many that noble Lords have asked about whether the Government plan to continue our commitment to this region of the world as we leave the European Union. This is an important demonstration of the UK as global Britain and the outworking of our future partnership in Europe, both in and beyond the European Union.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for this very timely debate. Of course, I also repeat the mantra that a secure and stable western Balkans means a secure and stable Europe. As the Minister said in the previous debate, we have a shared interest in working together to increase stability and help the region on its Euro-Atlantic path. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned, it is just over a year since we had the report from the International Relations Select Committee on the western Balkans. After that, in May, we had the debate on the report, which was very timely as it came soon after the western Balkans summit in Sofia and after the first visit to the region from a British Prime Minister in more than 20 years.
As we have heard, sadly, we are today missing one person who contributed to that debate in May. I too pay tribute to the late Lord Ashdown, especially for his work as high representative in Bosnia. He was a brave and tenacious person. He did not hold back his opinions whenever he needed them to be heard. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, said, had he not left Bosnia in 2006 the situation could have been vastly better than it is today. He should have be proud of what he, and this country, contributed to stabilising the country. Of course, we should not forget the 72 British soldiers who gave their lives building that stability.
As Lord Ashdown told us in that debate, he felt very strongly that his work had been severely undermined in the region by the EU’s change of policy in 2006, leaving everything to local ownership, as the noble Baroness mentioned. Bosnia was not stable, with nationalism on the rise and secession a greater threat than ever before. That is a view reflected in today’s debate and very much in the debate in May. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have US disengagement, and, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the increase of Russian influence that we focused on in May has not diminished. In May the Minister told us he was aware of the threat and cognisant of the need to address it, repeating the Prime Minister’s mantra that what we needed was an “engagement and beware” type of policy. He mentioned the need to continue to engage through the Bosnia Peace Implementation Council steering board with Russia. I hope he can tell us just how that has been effective since the last debate in May—how have we been engaging with Russia to address the issues heard in the debate?
All noble Lords mentioned the situation with Serbia and Kosovo. I will not go into the specific points, but we have had little progress on the EU-sponsored dialogue since 2013. In December, Kosovo’s Parliament voted to approve a 5,000-strong standing army. We also have the situation in NATO, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The Secretary-General of NATO called the move by the Kosovan Parliament an “ill-timed” decision. I have seen the UK’s response to it, but can the Minister tell us how the UK is working through NATO to address that issue?
The really good thing about today’s debate is that it gives us an opportunity not only to reflect on the debate we had in May, but to consider what our expectations and aspirations for the summit in July were. We all mentioned our hopes. Now we have the opportunity to judge what the Minister told us in May and see what was delivered. In his characteristic way, the Minister left us on an optimistic note, saying we would use the summit in London to work with our partners to address all the concerns raised by noble Lords. The committee report last year stressed the need for us to use the occasion to ensure that our contribution is to support stability, democracy, the rule of law and prosperity in every issue that has been addressed today. The summit’s conclusions were for greater progress on those three crucial areas: increasing economic stability, strengthening security co-operation and facilitating political co-operation.
Despite these high aspirations there is no doubt that there were criticisms. Some felt it was no more than a photo opportunity. Clearly the London venue and our preoccupation with Brexit had an impact, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned. You have to address the issue that a country leaving the EU was trying to hold a meeting aimed at encouraging others to join it. That, clearly, is an issue one has to be sceptical about.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, on the day of the summit, our Foreign Secretary, who was due to welcome the Ministers, had resigned. Talk about timing. Theresa May also found herself in a situation where she was addressing Parliament to defend her own Government’s position. Of course, there is no doubt that, for some people, that demonstrated that the six western Balkan countries are not a priority for the United Kingdom, especially when the Government seemed so unstable. There were social media comments. I read one from Professor Bechev, a specialist in the field, that Balkan leaders were coming to London to lecture the UK on political stability. But there is a serious underlying issue. We promote accession for very good reasons: it is a mechanism for building democracy and commitment to the rule of law. It has been a tried and tested process. In our earlier debate, we did not underestimate the problem that that accession process has. Sometimes it has been done too quickly and some of the guarantees or commitments could not be delivered. Lord Ashdown particularly made the point that we were not looking at the region as a whole in that accession process. Allowing some countries into the EU more quickly than others created its own tensions. I know that he focused on that in our previous debate.
I am not going to be completely pessimistic. The fact is that the London summit achieved some very positive results. We have heard about them today. We have of course had some important declarations signed on regional and good neighbourly relationships, missing persons, and a joint declaration on war crimes. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and how we address those issues, particularly in the context of the region. I was particularly pleased to see a doubling of funding to the region from the Conflict, Security and Stability Fund as well as a doubling of UK staff dealing with security issues, and the £10 million for digital education among young people.
I want to focus on another element of the summit, which the Minister mentioned in our May debate, and which the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic, and Lady Barker, have raised: the role of civil society. My noble friend Lord Browne mentioned the important need to see political engagement as not just with Governments. It is also about politicians and parliamentarians. We need to have broad engagement. I will focus on civil society. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said prior to the summit that we would work closely with civil society and youth groups to develop the summit agenda and ensure that civil society and young people from the region were well represented and, more importantly, heard by political leaders at the summit. As we have seen from the report, 140 civil society and youth representatives attended the London summit for the civil society and youth forum. I would like to hear from the Minister exactly how that voice was heard by politicians. How did we do that? How did we achieve it? I know that the announcement of £4 million to expand the activities of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is great news, and certainly welcomed by me. Again I emphasise that the WFD is focusing on parties, parliamentarians and voters, but I have raised with the head of the WFD that we should see civil society and building democracy in broader terms.
At the congress of the Party of European Socialists in Lisbon in November, but also at a number of WFD initiatives, I met with parliamentarians to talk about how they engage with civil society, particularly on diversity issues, and how we engage on and defend LGBT rights. I am keen to see whether there is LGBT representation in the civil society forums at the summit. I know the value that that sort of work can have, because it enables people to hear voices that they do not normally hear. That is true of the importance of women’s involvement in civil society. That is another issue about how political parties have been changing. I hope the noble Lord gives us some indication on that.
This has been an incredibly timely debate. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, continues to ensure we have this debate so that we can monitor our progress. One of the things that was said was that we would work with Poland on the next summit, not only on how we evaluate the action points from this summit, but on how we build the next one. I am keen to hear from the Minister exactly what sort of engagement we have with Poland now to ensure that that work continues and that we are fully engaged.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing and joining the tributes to the widely respected Lord Ashdown. He said of himself that his life,
“became intertwined with the fate and future … of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its extraordinary people”.
As we have heard, and I join the tributes from other noble Lords about his role, he was widely respected and revered, not just within his own party but across Parliament. He was widely respected and revered in the region in which he played such an intrinsic part, and his absence is felt by all of us. He played a vital role in galvanising international action during the conflicts that followed the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, and his personal contribution to the stability and security of the region, as High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been rightly recognised by many in that country and beyond. His overall contribution to the western Balkans and to your Lordships’ House will not be forgotten.
Therefore, it is right that we meet after his sad passing for a debate that was tabled by my noble friend Lady Helic. She is not just a noble friend but a friend who has been a great support, particularly in my work, as my noble friend Lady Anelay mentioned, as the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, with a long-standing commitment to the region and great insight into the challenges that are faced. To those who sometimes say that the Bosnian conflict was a couple of decades ago and has been forgotten, I say that they should read the contributions from your Lordships’ House, and in particular the contributions of my noble friend, and that myth will be put to rest. It is right that we continue to focus on this important region, and I thank my noble friend, indeed all noble Lords, for their thoughtful, insightful and also heartfelt contributions during the debate today.
My noble friend made a suggestion in relation to young leaders, and the issue of youth came up in a number of contributions. It is one of the ways in which the legacy—the contributions—of Lord Ashdown can be remembered. I shall take away the thoughtful suggestion of the noble Baroness and discuss with her how best to mark and remember Lord Ashdown’s contributions in this area.
On the debate itself, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. As was proven more than once in the 20th century, instability and insecurity in the western Balkans can have serious implications for the whole continent, and indeed for the United Kingdom. I join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in paying tribute to our servicemen and servicewomen who lost their lives in the 1990s, and to those who served from other countries, and in remembering those who paid a heavy price for the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. It is important that we continue to work towards ensuring stability in the region.
The United Kingdom, as has been acknowledged by several noble Lords, has been at the forefront of helping the countries of the western Balkans transition towards peaceful, stable democracy. All six countries that make up the region today have made progress towards European standards of political and economic governance. Montenegro and Albania are now NATO allies. We hope that Macedonia will join NATO soon—once the Prespa agreement has been ratified. Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are gradually—a lot of work remains to be done—developing a closer relationship with NATO, each contributing troops to EU operations in places that matter to our security, including other conflict zones such as Somalia and Kosovo, and the UK security forces enjoy a close partnership that includes joint training. I saw the strong presence, and respect, that the United Kingdom has in Kosovo when I was delighted to be joined by my noble friend Lady Helic on a visit there last year.
Yet, as we have also heard—including from my noble friend Lady Stroud—serious challenges persist, and not just economic ones. If left unaddressed, they could not only undermine the progress made by the countries of the region in Euro-Atlantic integration, but adversely affect European security as a whole—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. As the Prime Minister made clear at our western Balkans summit last year, which I attended—I will refer to that further in a moment—this is the essence of our strategy in the region. The Government are committed to helping the countries of the region overcome these challenges—be it in the area of economics, security or greater stability—and make progress on their Euro-Atlantic path. This commitment will remain steadfast after we leave the European Union—a point raised by several noble Lords. Indeed—my noble friend Lady Stroud alluded to this—our funding will rise to £80 million per year by 2021.
I turn to specific countries in the region. As a number of noble Lords mentioned, the past few months have seen an unwelcome increase in tension between the Governments of Serbia and Kosovo. Serbia, as I found for myself on my travels, has urged various countries to withdraw their recognition of Kosovo’s independence, has campaigned against Kosovo’s bid for membership of Interpol, and has expressed concern over Kosovo’s decision to amend the mandate of its security forces. Kosovo, meanwhile, has imposed 100% tariffs on Serbian goods. We believe—I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins—that Kosovo has the sovereign right, as an independent state, to develop its armed forces. I also assure my noble friend Lady Anelay that we will continue to encourage Kosovo to do so, in close consultation with NATO and the wider international community.
We do not share Serbia’s concerns that the gradual change in the size and role of Kosovo’s security forces threatens regional instability. In our view, the failure to normalise relations between Serbia and Kosovo is a more significant risk, and that is why we have been committed to getting—and encouraging—both sides to de-escalate and return to negotiations under the EU-facilitated strategic dialogue, which we will continue to support. We are a strong supporter of this dialogue and regularly discuss progress with HRVP Mogherini and other partners, including the non-recognising states within the EU and NATO—a point well made by my noble friend Lady Anelay. Let me reassure her that we will continue to raise these issues not just within those organisations but on a regular bilateral basis.
The aim is simple: to ensure that we continue to support a settlement that genuinely contributes to the security, stability and prosperity of the region. I can give noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Helic and Lady Anelay, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, among others, a reassurance that Her Majesty’s Government do not support the redrawing of borders along ethnic lines, and that we have made this clear to both parties. The question was raised of whether this had been made clear to the High Representative of the European Union. I can assure my noble friend that it has indeed been made clear to our partners, including the High Representative.
Perhaps I may turn to Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are concerned about the negative political trends and the risk of inertia following the October elections. The heavy focus on the elections has indeed distracted attention from the issues that really matter to people, such as the limited economic opportunities which my noble friend Lady Stroud talked about, the political discord mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and of course poor governance. Bosnia’s leaders must take urgent steps to address these issues which are causing many of their citizens to simply leave, as my noble friend said, in order to seek brighter futures elsewhere. They must ensure that the electoral results are implemented quickly and that Governments are formed at all levels which can carry out much-needed socioeconomic and public sector reforms. The UK will continue to be committed and will work closely with all partners genuinely committed to reform, including of the rule of law.
The new Bosnian Government must honour their responsibilities towards the institutions of state as agreed under the Dayton peace agreement. Failure to do so risks deepening stagnation and increasing instability in the country and, indeed, the region. NATO allies are willing to work more closely with Bosnia, as is evident from our readiness to accept its first annual national programme. We hope that Bosnia takes this important opportunity to strengthen co-operation with NATO and improve the effectiveness of its armed forces.
I turn now to Macedonia. The challenges in the region are clear. However, with the necessary political will, there are also opportunities for positive change, as Macedonia has shown with its progress towards resolving the long-standing name issue with Greece. I believe that a final resolution for that issue is imminent. Resolution would of course open the door to further Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership, which would be good for the people of Macedonia, the country’s stability and security and the region as a whole. The UK and, I am sure, noble Lords will continue to support the Governments in Skopje and Athens as they work to turn the Prespa agreement into a reality.
In parallel, more work needs to be done to strengthen Macedonian institutions, tackle corruption, a point well made by my noble friend Lady Anelay, and reform public administration, all of which would be beneficial in their own right and will help the country to stand up to malign external influences. Let me assure noble Lords that we are working with the Macedonian Government to support judicial reforms and media freedom. We will continue to press for more progress in these areas over the coming months.
Elsewhere, the UK enjoys good co-operation with Albania, building, I am sure, on the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, when he was Defence Secretary. It is a strong relationship, and we continue to work together on important issues, particularly those related to serious and organised crime. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in congratulating Albania on having just been elected to serve as the chair of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in 2020. This is an opportunity for Albania to demonstrate leadership on some of the key security challenges facing the region and beyond. The UK will stand as a partner in this respect.
Turning to Russia, noble Lords have rightly raised the issue of the threats to the stability and security of the western Balkans which come from others. The Government remain deeply concerned about continuing malign external influence in parts of the region. We are particularly concerned about the aggressive approach taken by Russia to disrupt progress towards Euro-Atlantic integration. The Russian-backed attempted coup plot in Montenegro in 2016 was a brazen example of the Kremlin’s willingness to foment chaos and instability. Russia’s malign activities in the western Balkans and elsewhere range from propaganda and disinformation to cyberattacks, as we ourselves have experienced, and of course none of us could forget the appalling use of the chemical nerve agent Novichok in Salisbury last year. We therefore welcome the firm actions taken by our allies, including a number of partners in the western Balkans, in response to the attack in Salisbury. It is vital that we stay together on this important issue.
My noble friend Lady Helic raised the matter of the recent developments in Republika Srpska and drew our attention to the developments there. I agree that they are deeply concerning, particularly the nationalistic elements that we are seeing. I will certainly look at the situation very closely in establishing what further responses the United Kingdom, and indeed other partners, can make in this respect. Along with our US and EU partners, we have made it clear to all communities that we believe in the sovereignty and integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
My noble friend raised the issue of Russia. We have made clear to Russia that it is a member of the Peace Implementation Council steering board, whose role it is to oversee the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. As I put on record in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, NATO and the EU are ready to engage constructively with Russia. The relationship has been challenging in recent months. However, we will continue to work with NATO and our EU allies to ensure that we overcome current and future Russian attempts to destabilise the region.
I turn briefly to a point made by my noble friend Lady Anelay. Serious organised crime is another shared challenge, and the UK continues to support countries in the region in this respect. We are strengthening our co-operation with regional partners on the issue. Also, I can confirm that we are increasing the number of UK staff working with our Balkan partners on fighting organised crime, corruption and cyberthreats, as well as supporting good governance and economic reforms more generally.
I am grateful to several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Anelay, for drawing attention to the Foreign Secretary’s media freedom campaign. Plans are being developed for a conference to be held in the UK on this issue. We are deeply concerned about the politicisation of the media and the decline in media freedom in parts of the western Balkans. We will continue to work on this important issue, with projects currently live in Serbia and Macedonia.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, talked of the important role of NATO and the UK’s role. Let me reassure noble Lords that the UK supports the principle of NATO’s open-door policy. It is important that this policy remains credible as a means to assist aspirant countries to reform, maintain a Euro-Atlantic path and constrain external threats. Countries meeting the relevant criteria have a sovereign choice to seek NATO membership, if they wish, free from any external influence. Indeed, all six countries of the western Balkans have Euro-Atlantic aspirations. This is a sovereign choice—no third country has a veto—and we will continue to support the region’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend Lady Helic mentioned the important issues of security and the rising tide of extremism in the region from both emerging right-wing extremism and those seeking to hijack Islam as a means to represent a perverse ideology. I assure noble Lords that the Government actively co-operate with all six western Balkan countries on countering terrorism and violent extremism and have funded research to understand better the drivers of radicalisation in this respect.
I turn briefly to the 2018 Balkans summit, which several noble Lords talked about. A specific deliverable from this was on the issue of PSVI. I had a very constructive discussion and follow-up with countries such as Croatia on ensuring that we can bring to light the positive elements now being achieved in the Balkans following the tragic conflict and break-up of the former Yugoslavia. During the summit, on security, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would redouble their number of staff working in the region; we have now committed to that. This will help prevent crime reaching UK streets and strengthen the region’s own response to serious crime. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, acknowledged, the six western Balkans Interior Ministers also signed the Joint Declaration on the Principles of Information-Exchange.
On economic stability, the UK Government committed £10 million to build digital skills and employment prospects for young people. The funding will also see the British Council—which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned—increase literacy and core skills in the region. There are other elements within that but, in the interests of time, I will write specifically to noble Lords about the progress made on each of those aspects.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. We continue to fund regional projects, with activities in all six western Balkan countries based on good democratic governance. Indeed, as was mentioned previously, this includes financial assistance of more than £4.7 million. The noble Earl also asked about visa liberalisation. Schengen is very much a matter for the EU and we are not part of it. As to whether there are specific elements of this, I will write to him after consulting with Home Office colleagues.
I shall touch on PSVI, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Anelay. First, I am grateful for her kind remarks and equally grateful for her direction and support, not just on this issue but on other areas as well. It was a great honour—a humbling honour—to take on this role and to meet some of these incredible and courageous survivors, as my noble friend did, who have themselves become the most powerful advocates. It has been a huge privilege to lead on this initiative, following the launch by my noble friend Lord Hague, and taking over the role from my noble friend Lady Anelay. I was delighted to have the support of my noble friend Lady Helic at the recent film festival we held in London. I am sure we are all looking forward to focusing on some positive elements and the progress that has been made in the Balkans on this initiative when we hold a major conference, five years on from its launch, in London this November.
I am particularly encouraged that, through many efforts, both locally and through the support that the United Kingdom has given, courts in Bosnia have now completed 116 cases involving charges of conflict-related sexual violence against 162 defendants. There is more work to be done but a great deal of work is now being achieved and I look forward to working with noble Lords on this important priority.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, hoped that this would not be words alone. It is not. We have committed to more than £80 million by 2021; we are increasing the number of staff working in the region and I assure noble Lords that, as the Prime Minister herself has identified, the western Balkans will remain an important region, not just historically. The UK will continue to play its part in its progress and our commitment will endure beyond our departure from the EU. An unstable western Balkans would present a risk to the United Kingdom and the whole of the European continent, whether through organised crime, the spread of malign external influences or the potential reawakening of old enmities. Therefore it is right that Her Majesty’s Government remain committed to supporting and strengthening Governments and working with civil society. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that civil society representatives were included and met Ministers directly during the summit. LGBT organisations were included for the first time at the summit. In doing so, it is important that we work together with our European partners, and notwithstanding our departure from the European Union we will continue to work with European partners, through NATO and bilaterally with the western Balkan countries, to ensure that we play our part in the continuing stability of that region.
I end where I started, with the words of Lord Ashdown. After the last debate in which he took part, I approached him and we had a brief discussion. I did not know him well but I remember that when I started my professional career in the early 1990s I went into the City of London, which is an incredible place in itself, and as part of a programme with Save the Children, I too visited the region, not once, not twice but three times. I met children who had lost parents, and some incredible, courageous women who had endured the worst kind of violence against the person. Little did I know that in the years to come I would return to the region as a Minister. It influences your mindset, and I shared that with Lord Ashdown, as he shared some of his stories, and I end with his very poignant words. He said to me, “You know what, Tariq? When I talk about Bosnia, Bosnia is under my skin”. I am sure that is something that many noble Lords have heard. It is a place you cannot leave behind. He has left a legacy for all of us and it is our joint responsibility to carry it forward.
Baroness Helic
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for being here today and for all being very kind in emphasising my expertise in this area. It is easy, because I was born and brought up there. It is in my DNA. You have all—Britain, in particular—managed to slightly repair that DNA, so that I felt able, today, to be more objective than I would have been 25 years ago when I arrived in this country, when my passion, my anger and my desire to tell the story of that region would have probably skewed my ability to tell the story as it is.
I am particularly humbled by noble Lords’ knowledge of and insight into what I admit is a pretty complicated region. Everyone looks the same and speaks more or less the same language, but everyone is at each other’s throats. The people of the western Balkans are wonderful and hospitable but their passions go way beyond anything you will see in this country.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his contribution, especially his emphasis on NATO’s importance in the region, particularly when it comes to stability. His emphasis on what he heard from his colleagues from the Balkans—that there is more that unites them than divides them—is absolutely true. Divisions have been imposed from above; they do not really go from the bottom up. I agree with the noble Lord’s observations on the unique threat to our communities and streets posed by instability in that part of the world. This is not just a phrase to be repeated. In Austria, Switzerland and France, we have seen several examples of weapons imported from the Balkans being used in terrorist attacks and criminal activity on the streets there.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for talking about the efforts of the Bosnian people; for example, people from Sarajevo coming to the National Library to pay tribute to a man seen in Bosnia as the father of the country. He managed to do what everyone thought was impossible: put the country back together. His predecessors found the task too arduous but he managed to inject his vision and passion and find a way forward that many thought impossible.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, emphasised the importance of not losing sight of what is happening in Kosovo. I could not agree more. Kosovo is a potential flashpoint as much as Bosnia is, representing a potential problem for us and for the region.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Anelay for her work on the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative. I started working on it but she took it to a completely new level. Her passion and commitment are unrivalled. The same goes for my noble friend the Minister, with whom I travelled to Kosovo. It is difficult to sit down with women who have gone through a very traumatic experience; it is not just the memory of what happened to them that is traumatic, but the fact that they live with it for years to come. They feel ostracised, as do their families, and stigmatised. My God—if we can do anything for them, we will do humanity a huge service. If we are aware of women, not only in the Balkans but elsewhere, going through such experiences and we can do something, however small, we will make a huge contribution to them, their families and their communities.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his exceptional insight into the workings of international institutions. His understanding of the problems, particularly in Bosnia, is hugely appreciated by both the Committee and me personally. It is always good to have someone with such knowledge and experience checking that my passions are being put in the right box. If my noble friends say that something is a problem and I think that it is a problem, then there is a problem. I will take that with me, if I may.
I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. Peace has arrived in the Balkans and progress has been made, but it is heartbreaking to see well-educated 21 and 22 year-olds who speak German, English and French and want only to work, sitting there, marinating in unemployment and being exposed to corruption. At some point, many go to Germany, including doctors, engineers and so on—I saw this morning that the German embassy has launched a website, in Bosnian, which says “Come to Germany”—and this is effectively harvesting the cleverest and least corrupt strata of society, not only in Bosnia but in countries such as Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro. While I am the first to say that I am living in this country—so how can I tell someone, “Do not go and live elsewhere, do not fight for your future, do not fulfil your aspirations”?—I also feel that the Balkans cannot be impoverished to the point where the youngest, brightest and most aspirational people have left, and those tainted by war and nationalism, or those who took part in the war, continue to peddle their backward, narrow-minded policies. I really hope we can help young people see that their region has a future, and that they have a stake in building it.
I am delighted to know that we have a supporter on the opposite side in the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. The 1990s were not easy and I remember certain members of his party making a strong case for intervention during that period. That was possibly the reason why Britain intervened so strenuously in Kosovo in 1998. That change of policy was long overdue in that part of the world. Kosovo was the lucky country; it possibly benefited from the good lessons of Bosnian non-intervention and it has made some progress, but much is still to be done. I feel reassured to know that we are all on the same page, because the region needs real unity between Washington DC, London and Brussels, but particularly here in this country. It is comforting to know. I know noble Lords on this side will always support the vision of the late Lord Ashdown and it is good to know we have support from other sides as well.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for giving his assurances. First and foremost, I welcome what seems to be an unequivocal message from Her Majesty’s Government to the leaders of Serbia and Kosovo that we cannot support the changing of borders. I hope that that message can be imparted to the High Representative in Brussels, Federica Mogherini, who seems to be engaged in and supportive of that policy, for reasons unknown to me. I am grateful to the Minister for committing to look into the events of 9 January, because it was unsettling not only for Bosnia but for the region to see this direct interference in the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. I also welcome his commitment to look at what more we can do to engage Russia, because it is a player. As he said, at this stage, it is a malign player, here and elsewhere, but it is one that we need to have a relationship with and if the Peace Implementation Council is the forum for that, then I welcome it.
I also thank the Government for their support of the BBC and the British Council in that part of the world. The launch of BBC News Serbian is a step in the right direction. I hope we can have more from the BBC and less from Sputnik and Russia Today in the Balkans. We need factual information, not disinformation that will discourage people from believing that stability is possible.
I repeat that I will hugely miss the late Lord Ashdown. He was not only a politician and diplomat who managed to put my country of birth back together but a friend, an ally and someone I looked up to. I will miss him every day.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Baroness Howells of St Davids
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Baroness for her much-valued service to this House.
New Home Building Programme
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jordan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to ensure that new properties built as part of their new home building programme are designed to avoid the occurrence of accidents in the home.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, we want to build homes that are safe and secure. The building regulations set requirements to ensure the safety of people using buildings. We are developing a programme to review the guidance that supports the building regulations as part of our response to Dame Judith Hackitt’s recent review of building regulations and fire safety.
Lord Jordan (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply and declare an interest as deputy president of RoSPA. Is the Minister aware that almost 40% of accidental injuries treated in hospital and emergency departments result from home accidents? RoSPA estimates that every five days there is a fatal fall on the stairs of a newly built home. The national accident prevention strategy advocates the use of the current version of British Standard BS 5395—the voluntary code of practice for the design of stairs. The widespread adoption of this standard would significantly reduce stair-related injuries and fatalities. Given the Government’s intention to build 300,000 homes a year, will the Minister assure us that all new homes built as part of their programme will be required to adhere to the British safety standard for stairs?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for all he and RoSPA do on home safety. I am aware of the statistics he referred to. The most prevalent way of people losing their lives at home is, indeed, falls on the stairs. We have in the next year the opportunity to tighten up the guidance on this. Without prejudicing any discussions, one way would be providing two handrails, for example, or lighting that comes on automatically on stairs. RoSPA will be part of that process. We have worked very closely with it—on 20 December we attended a seminar it led—so I can give the reassurances that the noble Lord seeks.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I hear from carers for the elderly that falls on stairs are fairly regular because some of the lifts in blocks are turned off at weekends and people have to be taken by carers—even by ambulance crews—down often many flights of stairs. It is very important that something is done to ensure that there is a way down and out—or in and up, because they return from hospital in the same way. A lot of accidents could be avoided if lifts were available in high-rise buildings. Also, can the Minister confirm that where a place is specially adapted for, say, a lack of mobility, and the person in question dies or goes into full-time care, that place will sensibly be offered to someone else with the same great needs?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. On her last point, which is certainly a point of common sense, I think that would happen through the disabled facilities grant in that, if something is required in the way the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, referred to, it will apply to all new premises. My noble friend raises an interesting point and it shows the importance of looking in the round at high-rise blocks. People are living longer. Most accidents in the home happen to people aged 65 or above and, as one would expect, that figure accelerates as people get older. Therefore, it is a particular concern and something we need to watch like hawks.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it was reported over the Christmas Recess that large housebuilders declared dividends of over £2 billion in 2018. Does the Minister agree that this fact sits most uncomfortably with the facts produced by RoSPA? Given the low-space standards for new homes, too many defects in new homes and the rising number of accidents, might the Government heed the clear advice of the Royal Institute of British Architects, which is calling for building regulations to be strengthened rather than depending in part on the planning system for the regulation of space standards?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the document produced by RoSPA on making homes safer through design was worked on with Berkeley Homes, so it is fair to give Berkeley a namecheck for what it does. However, the noble Lord is right that builders have a responsibility to adhere to the building regulations. We are looking at those regulations. As I said, it is clearly unacceptable that there are 6,000 deaths a year. I think that we can get that figure down and we are very keen to do so through appropriate guidance and regulations.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord’s replies, but I recall the efforts in this House to improve build quality, energy efficiency, sustainable drainage, electrical safety and other measures. The noble Lord and his party have opposed them all or, in the case of electrical safety, have finally been dragged in the right direction, but even there the measure is still not in place in the private rented sector—a measure that would save lives and reduce the number of serious injuries in the home. Why is that?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is being uncharacteristically unfair. If he looks at the record of what we have been doing on, say, cladding—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
It is a serious issue. He will know that we moved to ban combustible cladding very quickly when the evidence was there. We will bring forward regulations in relation to electrical safety. With regard to the Hackitt review, I have indicated that within the next year we will review all the documents relating to building safety with a view to ensuring that we minimise—and, I hope, eliminate—the number of accidents in the home.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that this is really a branch of preventive medicine? In respect of the Government’s review, will they talk to Sir Nicholas Wald, professor of preventive medicine at the Wolfson Institute, where there are lots of good ideas in this area? While they are doing so, they might well ask him his views on the preventive medicine aspect of fortifying flour with folic acid, as in 1990 he headed the UK’s Medical Research Council, which discovered the link with the nutrient deficiency. That recommendation has been adopted by 80 other countries as a preventive measure.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is obvious that the noble Lord has been going to the same seminars as the noble Lord, Lord West, with regard to framing Questions, but I am sure that that point will have been picked up. On his general point, of course we are very happy to hear about prevention, which is indeed better than cure. A public health budget is held by the Department of Health and Social Care and that is the other side of the coin. We have the building regulations but money also needs to be spent on promotion to make sure that people are aware of these issues.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
Is the Minister aware that information on many of the standards developed by the BSI is available only on the payment of a fee, which can be quite high? Does he agree that it does not make a lot of sense to have something which on occasion has the force of secondary legislation but is accessible only if you pay for it? Surely, if something is designed for safety, it should be freely accessible.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I agree with the noble Baroness that the information should be freely accessible. Obviously, there is a cost to deploying it and you have to get the balance right, but I certainly agree that it is very important that we have access to the information so that people are aware of their rights in this regard.
Brexit: Statutory Instruments
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the parliamentary time required for the consideration and approval of statutory instruments arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have a full understanding of the time required for the consideration and approval of EU exit-related statutory instruments. We remain confident that all EU exit-related SIs required to ensure a functioning statute book will be brought forward in good time for exit day and with the appropriate scrutiny.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, that is not very informative. In broad terms, there are at least 200 statutory instruments—new laws—under scrutiny and at least 300 still to be brought forward. More will arise, either from a withdrawal agreement Bill or a Bill to cope with the consequences of no deal. Does the Minister recognise that, even if this House devoted eight hours every working day up to 29 March to these new laws, they would not get an hour’s consideration each? Can he guarantee that the Government will not resort to emergency powers enabling them to legislate without prior parliamentary approval? If there is an emergency, it is one of the Government’s own making. Does he not see that this situation is making a mockery of the idea that we are bringing back control of our own laws?
Lord Callanan
As I said, we remain confident that we will be able to deliver the programme in time. We do not expect to have to use the urgent procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but we cannot rule anything out at this stage. We have no expectation of having to do so.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to a statutory instrument produced by BEIS. It runs to 636 pages, weighs 2.54 kilos and covers 11 disparate subjects addressed to this House as one statutory instrument. Regarding procedures, this is unprecedented. Can the Minister assure the House that this is not simply an underhand way to reduce the number of statutory instruments we need to scrutinise, thereby reducing delays? It would take days for this document alone to undergo proper scrutiny in this House.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lord for drawing that to my attention. I have more regard for his scrutiny powers than he himself does. I am sure he will give the matter his full consideration. These are essential pieces of legislation. We will need to introduce them before exit day.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what proportion of these statutory instruments contain Henry VIII powers? Does he agree that any growth in the number of Henry VIII powers creates a dangerous power imbalance between the Executive and Parliament and therefore should be resisted?
Lord Callanan
We are endeavouring to keep the number containing Henry VIII powers to a minimum. I will write to the noble Lord with the detailed numbers.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Business Secretary said this morning on the “Today” programme that no deal would be a disaster. This view is said to be shared by other Cabinet Ministers. Why do the Government not rule it out and withdraw the SIs that address a no-deal scenario, thus allowing more time for consideration of regular SIs?
Lord Callanan
We have said that we do not want or expect a no-deal situation to arise, but it is responsible to prepare for it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, what parliamentary authority is there for expenditure, including on SIs, on a no-deal scenario, which has now been ruled out by the other place?
Lord Callanan
The no-deal scenario has not been ruled out by the other place. Parliament as a whole has legislated for leaving the European Union on 29 March this year. We hope to do so with a deal. If not, we will leave without one.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, do the Government have no concerns about the quality of the primary and secondary legislation that will need to be enacted by 29 March? One understands the political reasons for not seeking an extension of the Article 50 process, but the national interest surely requires it.
Lord Callanan
Of course we have concerns about quality. We are endeavouring to keep all the relevant committees informed of when SIs will be tabled. We wrote to them before Christmas to give details. We are publishing full explanatory statements with every SI as required under the legislation; we are endeavouring to work with Parliament as much as possible in this process.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, as has been touched on already, many of the SIs being laid are in preparation for a no-deal Brexit. Does the Minister agree that a huge amount of parliamentary and civil servants’ time, and money, would be far better spent and saved if the Government simply did not bring forward SIs that deal with a no-deal Brexit? Nobody wants it.
Lord Callanan
The Labour Party cannot have it both ways. It cannot on the one hand say, “We are voting against the best and only deal available”, and then say, “But we don’t want no deal”. No deal is the absence of a deal. If you want a deal, European Union leaders have made it very clear that this is the best and only deal available, the result of two years of negotiation. No alternative deal is available. If you do not want no deal, you need to vote for the deal.
Lord Newby (LD)
Will the Minister explain the Government’s complete lack of urgency in dealing with statutory instruments? We will rise today by about 3 pm; we normally rise at 7 pm. We are not sitting tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, has graphically demonstrated that, on current plans, there is no way that the Government are scheduling business so that we can deal with SIs in a professional manner. Why is this?
Lord Callanan
The organisation of business in the House is a matter for my noble friend the Chief Whip and for the usual channels. I am sure they will, as they always do, work collaboratively and co-operatively to ensure there is sufficient time for the proper scrutiny of all the appropriate legislation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I have taken a lot of interest in the SI process and most of these SIs are needed, whether we have a deal or not, to bring EU law into UK law. We should support that process whatever our views in today’s bigger debate.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for her constructive comments. The reality is that we are leaving the European Union. That decision was made by the referendum and by Parliament. We happen to believe that we should do it with a functioning statute book.
China: Human Rights
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the violations of human rights in China, including the arrest and disappearance of political activists and religious adherents, forced organ harvesting, and restrictions on free speech; and when they last made representations on these matters to the government of China.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned about restrictions to civil and political freedoms in China, particularly the treatment of ethnic minorities, freedom of expression, association and assembly, and freedom of religion or belief. We highlighted these concerns publicly during China’s universal periodic review in November 2018 and in my subsequent Statement. During 2018, the UK raised human rights bilaterally with China on a number of occasions, including through the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, Ministers and senior officials.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he noted that at the heart of the deterioration of human rights in China has been the imprisonment, interrogation and, in some cases, torture of some 300 human rights lawyers and activists and their families? Among the issues that these brave lawyers have pursued is the mass repression of Uighurs in Xinjiang, the destruction of Christian churches, the arrest and detention of pastors such as Wang Yi and his wife Jiang Rong just before Christmas, and the forced harvesting of organs from prisoners of conscience. Sir Geoffrey Nice QC’s China Tribunal describes the situation as,
“involving a very substantial number of victims”,
and as being, “beyond reasonable doubt”, perpetrated by the state. Can the Minister assure us that, in the next universal periodic review, these questions will be put on the agenda, and the Government will do much more to try to raise levels of support for these courageous lawyers and civil society groups, who do not want China to regress into the violence and destruction that was so characteristic of the Cultural Revolution?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I commend the efforts of the noble Lord in consistently raising this issue and standing up for the different communities, the lawyers and activists, those of different faiths, and those who are being subjected to specific targeting for organ harvesting. I reassure him that, during the last UPR in Geneva, I made it a point to directly raise these issues, including the treatment of lawyers and religious minorities, and specifically the closure of Christian churches and the desperate situation of the Uighurs.
Sir Geoffrey Nice is conducting a review on organ harvesting, and the noble Lord will note that I ensured that some of my officials attended the hearings of the preliminary findings of that report. We are currently awaiting the detailed outcome. Let me reassure all noble Lords that we will consistently raise human rights publicly, through processes such as the UPR, and bilaterally, as I indicated in my original Answer.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response and also for Mark Field’s response to my honourable friend’s Written Question just before Christmas. However, noting all the contact that we have had through the Foreign Secretary and the Minister himself in raising our concerns, has the FCO taken the trouble to speak to the Department of Trade and other civil society organisations, including business, about our concerns on civil liberties? Engagement is not simply about political representation. We should make clear to everyone engaged with China that we have genuine concerns over human rights, and that to do business with China we need to see an improvement.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as I have repeatedly said, in bilateral meetings and, importantly, publicly, the Government are clear that our trading relationship with China is important. China is an important strategic partner, and it is because of the strength of our partnership that we are consistently able to raise these issues bilaterally. The noble Lord raised the important issue of a cross-government approach. Let me reassure him that that is exactly the approach we take. We will continue to raise these concerns, as I have said, through international fora and bilaterally. The situation for particular minorities and for groups that we have not mentioned—for example, journalists detained in China—is deeply concerning; indeed, it is a country which is paramount in our minds as the Foreign Secretary launches his new campaign this year on media freedom.
Lord Cormack (Con)
It is good to know that the Government are making these representations, but what evidence is there that the Chinese are listening and acting on them? Surely it is a matter of the profoundest concern that the country that will be the dominant power in the world by the middle of this century indulges in these practices.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, as I said, our job is to raise this concern bilaterally and, with other like-minded partners, with our Chinese counterparts, and we will continue to do so. If I may, I will refer to a recent example that I have already mentioned in your Lordships’ House. Just before Christmas, we sent our diplomats to undertake an insight into the suffering of the Uighur community. They have now reported back and we are looking very closely at their findings and recommendations to ensure that we can take those up with the Chinese. This cannot in any way be done by force of hand. It is through consistent and collaborative representations that we will, I believe, begin to see a change. If the Chinese wish to see a place for China that is progressive—which they clearly do—they need to subscribe to the international standards set and be held accountable.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, according to Amnesty International, there are more executions in China than the rest of the world. Issues that have been identified include not only the death penalty but the one-child policy, the legal status of Tibet, freedom of the press, the lack of regular legal recognition of human rights, the lack of independence of the judiciary, and the lack of rule of law and due process. In our haste to build a good relationship with China, particularly for trade, are we compromising on these human rights issues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, let me reassure the noble Lord that, if we were compromising, we would not be raising these specific points in public fora, as we have done through the UPR process.
Benefit Reforms
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of benefit reforms on families with children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, this Government support families. Our welfare system supports those who are vulnerable and helps people into work. These reforms are working, with 3.3 million more people in work and 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than in 2010, a record low. Once fully rolled out, universal credit will result in an extra 200,000 people moving into work and will empower people to work an extra 113 million hours a year to support their families.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I thank the Minister for her Answer and I am grateful for recent engagement with faith and other groups on this issue, but the Government’s own statistics show that child poverty is rising among families with more than two children, even when those families have an adult in work. One of the principal drivers of this increase is the Government’s two-child limit, which makes it harder for parents of more than two children to work their way out of poverty, contrary to the aims of universal credit. In light of this evidence, will the Government reconsider that two-child policy?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I welcome this question from the right reverend Prelate. First, I want to say that we now spend more in this country than any other developed nation on family benefits.
Baroness Buscombe
I said I would begin by saying that we now spend more in this country than any other developed nation on family benefits. The aim of the two-child policy is an important one: to strike the appropriate balance between support for claimants with children, and fairness to taxpayers and families who support themselves solely through work. Parents who support themselves solely through work would not expect to see their wages increase simply because of the addition of a new child to their family. However, we are looking at the policy with regard to its extension, which is due to take place next month.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, the Resolution Foundation recently estimated that the four-year benefit freeze implemented in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 will result in a net cumulative saving by the Exchequer in 2020 of £4 billion. Is it not now time to think about redeploying some of those savings to provide much-needed assistance to hard-pressed low-income families with children?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, let us look quickly at what we offered in the Budget. The Budget has made an enormous difference in the amount of money that we have put into the system following concerns. We announced a £4.5 billion cash boost to universal credit in the 2018 Budget; that was voted against by the party opposite. The reality is that we are doing a lot to reduce the number of children in workless households because we believe that that makes an enormous difference to the possibilities for children: we know that they are five times less likely to be in poverty where both parents work. Children need role models, and parents need dignity and a sense of self-worth to believe that they can achieve their potential and support their children. The principles of UC entirely support this truth.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister accept my evidence from shopping at a supermarket in a small town in South Gloucestershire, an area not noted for poverty? At the beginning of the school holidays last July there was a note at the Trussell Trust food bank to the effect that it wanted more donations, because there were 34 children—in a relatively prosperous town—who were no longer having school dinners and were in families that could not afford to give them a lunch? If I were sitting on that side of the House I would be ashamed.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I am not ashamed. There are many and varied reasons why people use food banks and it is misleading to automatically link this to any single cause, as the party opposite chooses to do. Let me give noble Lords an example of the kind of support that we are giving children and families, in addition to free school meals and Healthy Start vouchers—
Baroness Buscombe
It is not to use up time, it is to set out our case. A working couple on universal credit with three children aged four, six and eight, for example, could be eligible for childcare support alone of up to £18,000 per annum from this Government. That is a long way from where we were when, under the last Labour Government, nearly 20% of all households were entirely workless: one-fifth of the entire household population of the United Kingdom. That is down to 13.9%. We are not complacent. We are making real progress to support families.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have spent time in food banks. I have seen working parents embarrassed and ashamed at having to go there to bring home food for their children. I do not think that anyone goes to a food bank unless they are desperate.
The Minister mentioned working parents getting childcare support. Parents of very young children are now required to take a job when their youngest child is three. They can be sanctioned if they do not. Yet the way in which universal credit pays out childcare help is that the parent has to pay the money up front and then claim it back. A lot of parents just cannot afford to do this. How can it be right for parents to risk being sanctioned when they are faced with a choice between taking a job and getting into debt, or not taking it and being sanctioned?
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Baroness will have heard that we are doing a lot through cash injection for childcare support, but I accept that it is important to look at the process of how and when it is paid. We are doing this at the moment. We know that 30 hours is already making a real difference to families. The independent evaluations of our early delivery found that 78% of parents reported greater flexibility in their working lives. Nearly a quarter of mothers reported being able to increase their working hours as a result. In particular, we want women in households to be liberated and empowered, just like every noble Baroness sitting in this House. I note that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, is in his place. One of the things in which I am particularly interested is flexibility of spousal employment for those women in the Armed Forces who support their husbands or partners. We are doing everything we can, working holistically across government, to achieve more to enable both parties to work and support their family.
Business of the House
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debates in Grand Committee on the motions in the names of Lord Nash and Baroness Helic set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.
Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That this House, for the purposes of section 13(1)(c) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, takes note of the negotiated withdrawal agreement laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and the framework for the future relationship laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the European Union Committee
Lord Strathclyde
I thank the House for its warm welcome, though I am not sure it is entirely deserved. I am delighted to reopen the adjourned debate. In my estimation, it is increasingly difficult to understand and keep track of exactly what is going on in this debate. It is even more difficult to try to explain it to the general public outside this House, particularly after yesterday’s shenanigans in another place. Let no one say that Speakers with powers improve behaviour. This House is a shining example of good behaviour, apart from the occasional expostulation from my good friend Lord Cumnock of Foulkes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
The wonderful thing about the Speaker in the other place is that he stood up for Parliament against the Executive.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it only required the tiniest fly over the head of the noble Lord for him to rise.
If you told me 12 months ago that we would still be debating whether or not we should have a deal after we leave the United Kingdom—
Lord Strathclyde
—after we leave the European Union, I would have been appalled. May the United Kingdom continue to prosper. Yet here we are. It is Groundhog Day. As for the debates we had yesterday and in December, I cannot help observing that, fascinating and excellent though the individual speeches may have been, we are often good at pointing out the problems but, with very few exceptions, we do not usually come up with many practical solutions that might help the Prime Minister in her discussions and negotiations.
Whatever views you have on Brexit, this stage of Brexit was always going to end in a compromise, especially during the course of transition. Yet what is so extraordinary is the sight of countries with some of the world’s most powerful economies and greatest histories unable to agree on how to trade in a fair, practical and sensible manner. What an appalling example to the rest of the world, which so often looks to the countries of Europe—including us—for wisdom, guidance and fair play. Trust has seemingly broken down between the Commission and the United Kingdom. There is more and more miscommunication and misunderstanding between the two.
Yet if we want a deal before we leave at the end of March, this one before us is the essence of what we are most likely to get. It is too late for anything else. I agree with many of the deal’s critics that it is far from perfect, but it is the one the European Union has agreed. However, unless something extraordinary happens over the weekend, there seems to be a consensus in both Houses and among political commentators that the House of Commons will not pass the deal next week—at which stage, no doubt, there will be discussion of the alternatives. Please, not another referendum. Can you imagine the debates we would have in this House on the questions, the franchise, the dates, the length of the campaign and its funding? Please, not that. There has to be another solution if we are not to leave on WTO rules at the end of March. That requires the Prime Minister to return to Brussels and the Commission to hear her out in a positive manner.
For me, the key lies with the backstop—an issue that most European Governments will not understand, on a border they have never seen and whose history or background they almost certainly do not truly understand. I understand why my noble friends in the unionist parties find the backstop so objectionable. Without their support, this deal does not get through the House of Commons. We can trade all sorts of different views on the backstop. The Attorney-General has opined why no one should fear the backstop, and this has been supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Usually, when he says something is so, it is so. But the politics of this is different, and we need to go the extra mile. The Government yesterday published further thoughts and clarifications and indicated support for the helpful amendment brought by Mr Hugo Swire. But this issue stands in the way of a deal. If I were the Taoiseach of Ireland, I would fear no deal more than anything else. It is a paradox that the obstacle to there being a deal is a thing they invented to try to make sure there would be no border.
This is the political challenge facing the Commission, the Irish Government and the UK Government in reaching an agreement. I believe this period does not need to end in shambles. We need to rebuild trust with the Commission. After all, we will still be neighbours, traders and markets; we shall still share fundamental values as well as vital security infrastructure. We disagree on political direction. Failure to amend the deal will be a failure for Her Majesty’s Government but also for the EU and the countries it represents. I hope, therefore, that minds will be concentrated next week.
With a very small step forward by the EU to agree a better arrangement for Northern Ireland, and by bringing unionists on board in another place, we can remove so much uncertainty at a stroke and begin the work for a positive and prosperity-driven relationship between the UK and our friends in Europe.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I make no apology for the fact that I will continue to press the Minister, and the Government, about the effects of the political agreement on our health services.
I start by thanking the Minister for addressing some of the questions that I raised in my speech in December, particularly those concerning medical research. It saves me from repeating the whole speech, which, as good as it was, would be tedious for me and for the House. However, I will return to some of the unresolved and serious matters that the NHS, the research community, pharma and medicine face, post Brexit—and to how very serious the issues of safety and availability will become if we should be so foolish as to crash out of the EU in a couple of months. I make no apology for continuing to speak about health and social care issues. I did it during the passage of the Brexit Act. I have been doing it during the extensive and somewhat bizarre debates about the “in case we crash out” statutory instruments. We tackled those concerning the regulation of human tissues, embryology, organs and blood yesterday. I will continue to raise these serious matters today and will do so during the passage of the Trade Bill.
At every stage I have sought reassurance from the Government over matters of reciprocal healthcare, the free movement of medical and nursing staff, the regulation and supply of medicines, clinical trials and research, the conduct and regulation of which is so important in the UK. Access to the portal is vital to patients across the UK and Europe.
The response of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his opening remarks yesterday, was welcome, after a fashion. However, I want to raise two issues. What the noble Lord said was in many ways too aspirational and not concrete enough. It was about wanting to explore new relationships, not to continue the ones that work already and are beginning to fall apart. Secondly, it was about the future. The noble Lord said:
“We have been clear that we want to explore association with EU research and innovation programmes”.—[Official Report, 9/1/19; col. 2224.]
While research programmes are protected to 2020, this completely ignores the fact that most research programmes take years to design, negotiate and fund. Brexit is already having a chilling effect on future research. What do the Government intend to do about this? How can they ensure that our universities and research organisations are not severely disadvantaged by being excluded from the funding and regulatory regimes of which they need to be part?
I shall return to the issue of the portal, which the noble Lord failed to address in his opening remarks; I hope he will do so at the end of this debate.
Agreement must be reached in the negotiations on UK participation in the single assessment procedure and access to the portal and database, which underpin the cross-national clinical trials regulation and come into operation in the next year. No access to the portal will severely reduce the ease of UK-EU trials set up and hurt our thriving life sciences environment. Clinical trials take years to plan and run. As things stand, UK researchers will enter the implementation period unsure what regulatory conditions they will face when they exit it. What is the Minister doing to resolve this issue with the necessary urgency? Is he aware of the cost of failing to do so? The deal as it is expressed does not achieve access to the portal. The political declaration makes no reference to how UK-EU clinical trials will operate after Brexit and this is of significant concern. As every day passes, uncertainty continues to increase in the research community over what the regulatory framework will be after 29 March and whether UK institutions will continue to be able to lead on UK-EU trials.
A further aspect is the mobility of researchers. The publication of the immigration White Paper in December has not clarified how changes to the rules will affect medical research; perhaps the Minister would care to do so. The current Migration Advisory Committee recommendation is for a salary threshold of £30,000 per annum, a figure that would penalise many research technicians—skilled workers who form the backbone of the research workforce but are often not highly paid. EEA nationals will now be subject to the immigration health surcharge and immigration skills charge. Students from the EEA will be required to have a visa to study, as current non-EEA students do.
On UK-EU mobility, it is good that the importance of the international movement of researchers is recognised in the political declaration, but there is not enough detail on the extent to which this will continue, either for researchers moving across borders to live and work, or for short-term travel for shared projects such as clinical trials. Could the Minister clarify that?
It is absolutely essential for our world-leading medical research environment, and for the breakthroughs that benefit patients, that we continue to attract, recruit and retain global scientific talent at all levels. At present, neither the political declaration nor the immigration White Paper offer this certainty. Yesterday, the Minister made no mention of medicines, which is an issue I will continue to raise because of the supply of medicines in the short term.
Finally, I raise the issue of the European reference networks following Brexit. The ERNs are virtual networks of medical specialists across Europe. They facilitate discussions on complex or rare diseases and conditions that require highly specialised treatment. As such, they are an essential resource for the 30 million rare disease patients in Europe. I agree with the Specialised Healthcare Alliance that continued UK involvement in European reference networks is vital to driving forward improvements in rare disease care in both the UK and the European Union. However, at present, the ERNs are open only to EU member states and EEA members, which means that there is a clear risk that the UK will no longer be able to participate. Can the Minister ensure that the Government work with the European Commission to ensure that the UK is able to contribute to ERNs following Brexit, in the interests of patients with rare diseases? I hope the Minister will be able to answer these questions at the end of this debate.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and to hear the contributions from other colleagues in the House.
Between the previous debate and this one, I visited the Middle East and north Africa, and a political friend of mine there told me that the world is both laughing and crying at us. They are laughing because of the farce of the Government’s ineptitude but crying because they love our country, as I and we all do, they need us to succeed in the world, and they see the canny British pragmatism of being independent but trading freely as part of the EU, with our openness and liberalism, being set aside in an uncertain world. To make the case further, the British Business Secretary—clearly going through trauma, as anyone listening to the “Today” programme this morning would have heard, but staying in the Cabinet, half-heartedly but on full pay—wrote this week that global confidence in the UK is seeping away because of the actions of the Government. They and he were of course right; it is a combination of farce and foreboding.
We have had the worst trading Christmas since the crash. Up to 5,000 jobs are going at JLR. Some £800 billion of assets in services, jobs and those managing them have moved and are moving to the EU. There are job shortages in key sectors, and on 21 December HMRC advised pharmaceutical companies to stockpile six weeks’ worth of stock over March and April. These are all now fact, and the permanently devalued pound compounds them all. They are the consequences of the prospect of leaving our biggest trading market, with no combined customs system.
Sir Walter Scott wrote what would be an apt description of the Brexit campaign:
“Faces that have charmed us the most escape us the soonest”.
Now the problem is that there is finally the crashing reality of what leaving means, and it does not match the rhetoric in a campaign that appealed to many people’s lesser angels. Realisation is never as good as anticipation, but the promises made, which could never have been kept, should never have been accepted by the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech. Lines in the sand have been washed away with every government retreat, and red lines suffer from greater and greater anaemia. Just yesterday, in a desperate attempt to appease the DUP, the Government committed to giving the non-sitting Stormont a veto on entering the backstop, which is utterly meaningless. We heard of course about a ferry contract being given to a company with no boats, but now we have a vote being given to an Assembly with no sitting Members.
There are only 43 sitting days left if there is no February Recess, and we are still promised more than 40 trade deals to ratify, as well as up to another 600 statutory instruments on delivering exit. We now simply cannot achieve a sensible, orderly exit, nor are the Government likely to be capable of delivering one at all.
We all know, mostly from speeches from the opposite side in these debates, that the party of incrementalism and resistance to radicalism struggled with being in a political union with the continent, because it never faced down its English nationalist edge. Instead of taking on UKIP, it sought to subsume it. It was the same when it struggled with the free trade arguments a century ago and land reform a century before that. Why it has been a surprise to some that it has been incapable of agreeing an exit when it could never agree what membership meant has been the surprise to me.
The difference now is that, in previous times, there was a clear opposition with a philosophical basis for their opposition: the Liberal Party, an alternative official opposition with an alternative proposition. But Labour now cannot even agree that the UK should stay in the single market, which guarantees the best economic and social future for our country. The Labour leadership, trying to inch the party to a general election in which the party will have a manifesto commitment to leave the EU, is not offering any meaningful opposition, so it is no surprise that it is not clear what it seeks in the meaningful vote. We heard from the cri de coeur of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, yesterday that he wants an election to unite his party, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, wants an election to unite hers. With both supporting Brexit, however, it cannot be a realistic way forward, nor will it adequately address the clear divisions in society, which were present long before the Scottish referendum, never mind the EU referendum, which nearly broke our union apart.
The divisions are deep in society, in the nations of the union and in the parties. The majority of Conservative Members do not want the Prime Minister’s deal, but she is persisting with it, and the majority of Labour Members want a referendum and Jeremy Corbyn is turning a deaf ear to them. We cannot easily get out of these divisions, but we need to accept that decisions of these magnitude need to go beyond a particular binary poll with undeliverable promises.
A higher proportion of registered voters voted yes in the Scottish independence referendum than voted leave in the EU referendum, but one side lost and one side won. But we surely cannot be in a position in which a 37.4% vote of registered voters on the winning side in the EU referendum has all the moral weight of democracy behind it, but the 37.8% of registered voters on the losing side in Scotland are cast aside as losers in perpetuity.
We cannot get out of the minority complex easily, but digging ourselves deeper into it over the last two years has not helped. However, least we can start. I hear the argument that another referendum will compound the divisions, but they were present before and will remain after. At least those who have to live with the consequences of this, young people in particular, need to have a say. Those who voted leave will decide whether this is what they actually voted for and whether it is worth it. This is a better start to addressing the deep social and economic divisions that allowed nationalism to breed than to limp on a journey into even more damage and division that this course takes us into. Perhaps then we can release government to focus on why this nationalism in Scotland and some parts of England has grown in recent years, while it is beneficial for our whole union to do so. We can at least have the rest of the world no longer crying with us or laughing at us.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, it is because so many people are concerned about the EU withdrawal and what it will bring that my conscience has directed me to say a few words in this mammoth debate. As far as I understand, severely disabled people have not been adequately considered in this saga. There are thousands of complicated rare conditions that people have to live with, and medicines become part of their lives. Already, the European Medicines Agency, which deals with safety of medicines and trials, has left London for Amsterdam. We will not have voting rights, which is most frustrating as we are the leaders in this field.
Britain’s most commonly used medicines are produced in 50 countries and drug companies say that airlifts, drug priority routes and export bans would be needed to prevent shortages under a no-deal Brexit, because of increasingly complex supply chains. Analysis carried out by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has found that the 20 most commonly used drugs in the NHS come from 23 other EU states as well as 27 other countries. The British Generic Manufacturers Association has said that delays in crossing the Channel was the number one problem for medicine supply. I have heard nothing about the supply of medicines for rare conditions, which can be vital to an individual’s survival. This whole situation could become a nightmare. Working together in co-operation in healthcare is paramount.
Just before the Christmas Recess, some of us were invited to visit the Francis Crick Institute, which carries out worldwide medical research. It was a great pleasure to meet some of the young researchers who were bursting with energy and enthusiasm and were the brightest and the best; research institutes must have them in order to compete in world research. Some 40% of the Crick scientists are Europeans, as are 55% of the post docs. Virtually every scientist thinks that a hard Brexit would completely cripple British science, while 97% think that a no-deal Brexit would be bad for UK science. One student working on an effective immune response is leaving the UK to return to Germany once her PhD ends. This decision was made because of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. At the moment, people have no idea how funding for post docs will be guaranteed and the insecurity causes students great concern. It would be sad if Brexit were to cause the brightest and the best to do their research elsewhere.
Another major anxiety is that the Government and the independent Migration Advisory Committee have shown that they do not understand the needs of severely disabled people who are living in the community and need to employ people so that they can live independently. The White Paper, The UK’s Future Skills-based Immigration System, published in December 2018, states that only the brightest and the best earning £30,000-plus a year can come here to work from anywhere in the world. Other workers will be allowed to come for a maximum of 12 months only, to be followed by a “cooling-off period” of a further 12 months, whatever that means. Perhaps the Minister could explain it. It will not entitle anyone to access public funds or to the right to extend a stay. Does this mean that employers will have to pay for private healthcare for their employees?
I have to declare an interest, in that I employ EU workers. They are happy to work at the weekends and to live in. It takes time for disabled people to train employees to meet their individual needs. Many of the people who are willing to work and to be trained for employment with disabled people come from Europe. Already, many of these much-needed people have returned to the EU due to problems involving Brexit. I find the Government’s proposals on these matters unacceptable.
Care workers also work in care homes and hospitals. These rules will also apply to them as well as to ancillary workers in the NHS. These employees need to be honest and willing workers; they do not need to be high flyers on a high wage, but they do need to be treated fairly and looked after. Many UK workers do not want these jobs and some of them are not fit for purpose. Our social care is already in crisis and it needs to be saved.
There is also a shortage of vets, about half of whom come from Europe. Many of them work in abattoirs. If they are restricted, this will affect animal welfare. I hope that sense will prevail before it is too late.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. My speech, however, will be taking a slightly different path from hers.
Nothing has changed since we debated the withdrawal agreement last month to make it any more palatable. That includes the extra bits of parliamentary process, both in Parliament here and in Northern Ireland that the Government invented yesterday. None of that can override the withdrawal agreement itself. The withdrawal agreement is as unsatisfactory today as it was last month. Fortunately, the Government’s Motion is only a take-note one and hence I shall be spared the need to vote against it, but I hope that the other place will reject the withdrawal agreement when it votes on it next week.
The principal problem remains the backstop, which passes all power to the EU, which will then decide whether we enter the backstop and whether and when we exit it. In practice, that means that it calls the shots on the terms on which we exit. This betrays the referendum result. Staying in some kind of limbo—following the rules indefinitely but having no say in them, while paying through the nose for the privilege—does not respect the sovereignty of the UK or the decision of the majority who voted to leave the EU.
I have been dismayed by the way that the EU has treated us. When the Prime Minister met the European Council on 13 December, she was again treated shabbily. The draft declaration which had been prepared to follow that meeting was deliberately and ruthlessly edited by her fellow Council members to remove references to the backstop being temporary and of short duration. They also deleted the reference to giving further assurances, and indeed none has been forthcoming.
It is about time that we stopped being supplicants to the EU. We are still the world’s fifth-largest nation in terms of GDP. We chose, as is our right, to leave the EU and have spent the last two and a half years trying to do so in a civilised manner within the terms of Article 50. We deserve better than being treated like a naughty child, to be scolded and punished at every turn.
The EU is fond of saying that it does not know what we want from the negotiations. While I think that that is said with largely malicious intent, I too have struggled to see the clarity and confidence in our negotiating position. Why, for example, we even bothered with the Chequers proposals last summer completely defeats me. However, my disappointment in the Government’s negotiating skills does not diminish my pride in this country and my confidence in its future outside the EU. We should now turn our efforts to three things.
First, we must concentrate on planning for our exit on 29 March without this withdrawal agreement. We should not use defeatist language like “crashing out” or “no-deal Brexit”. We are simply leaving: it is just an exit. We will, of necessity, revert to trading with the EU on WTO terms and we need a clear strategy for that, including what our stance will be on tariffs. We must make every effort to reach agreements on matters such as citizens residing out of their home territory, on travel arrangements including flights and visas and on practical methods for reducing friction at our borders. The very clear statement yesterday by the president of the Calais port that there would be no practical problems in maintaining traffic flow demonstrated that there has been a lot of scaremongering. Indeed, too often, risks have been talked about as if they are virtual certainties that would be incapable of mitigation by practical steps.
Secondly, we must start working with the EU on a proper long-term trading relationship. The starting point must not be the vacuous and inadequate political declaration. We need to go back to the basics of the current economic equilibrium of our trade. Put simply, we buy a lot less in terms of goods from the EU than EU nations buy from us, but our service sector is in surplus. Our negotiations should be built around what is important to each side, not just what is important to the EU.
Thirdly, we should get to work on trade arrangements with other key nations. The withdrawal agreement prevents meaningful trade negotiations because there is no certainty about whether and how we will escape the backstop.
There will be problems, points of friction and some real practical difficulties, I have no doubt about that, but we shall no longer have to hand over the £39 billion included in the withdrawal agreement. We can spend it on our national priorities. The Government must now restore pride in our nation and confidence in our future. The best way for that to happen, even if there is some short-term pain, is to reject the withdrawal agreement and move rapidly to charting our life outside the EU as a free-standing nation.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, the reason why I am making my small contribution today is that for the last two years this House and the other place have been going round in circles, which has landed us in the muddle that we are in today. I believe that we must turn to the people again for their guidance, now that they are more informed, in the absence of strong leadership from the centre. I must confess that I am not the greatest advocate for referenda, especially the kind that we have had to encounter for the last two years, where many of the key issues were rarely, if ever, discussed in a meaningful way. People are really only now beginning to understand the full effects of this country leaving the EU. In the fallout from the 2016 vote, though, it is clear that a new referendum is needed. It must be one that addresses openly the true and accurate nature of the issues facing the nation, bereft of the kind of waffle that was part of the 2016 campaign.
The main political parties have also been guilty of not stressing many of the real issues that have emerged during the course of the campaign, notably Northern Ireland. As my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen said in his powerful speech when we last debated this issue, the Northern Ireland problems were hardly ever discussed. My noble friend and my noble friend Lord Hain, both of whom were Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—like my noble friend Lord Dubs and myself, who were Ministers—know how important the Good Friday agreement is to the Province and indeed to the rest of us, yet, as we all know, that was hardly ever discussed in any meaningful way during the course of the referendum campaign. There are of course many other issues that were not discussed fully in that campaign: the potential problems of medical supplies from abroad; reduced numbers of doctors and nurses, which will greatly affect the NHS; the damage to the funding and research programmes in our universities—the list is endless.
In the face of the many failings of the referendum campaign, I get tired of the many people in this House and outside who bang on about “the will of the people” and the need to honour the result. Even referendum results are not cast in stone. No less a person than the former Brexit Secretary David Davis once said:
“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”.
When one considers that the leavers won by a very slender majority of 52% to 48%, clearly the time has come for a revisit now that some of the distortions and lies have been revealed. The most notable was the misleading message on the infamous Boris bus, but there were many more like it.
My final plea is that the long-term survival and prosperity of our nation will rest in the hands of the younger generation: our children and grandchildren. It is the wishes of the young people who voted in the referendum of which we should really take note. Studies of the voting pattern of the different age groups in the 2016 referendum given to me by the House of Lords Library show that the vast majority of 18 to 24 year- olds and 25 to 34 year-olds voted remain, with the majorities for the leave vote appearing among those who were over 45 years of age. The knowledge that the new referendum will release some 2 million young people who were not eligible last time, the vast majority of whom will be expected to join the lower age group in voting remain, is another good reason why, in the interests of the future generation, bringing the question back to the people must be of considerable importance.
Out of the conflict and muddle of the last two years at least comes the potential for a better, more informed debate, with clearer judgments on the real issues. Once we have the result of a referendum based not on fiction and distortion but on facts and a full understanding of what Brexit really means, we can then say, with real meaning, “No more referenda”—because that will be the real, true meaning of the British people.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank (LD)
My Lords, for more than two and a half years, Theresa May, the Prime Minister, has been immensely busy and resilient, despite her rebellious House of Commons troops behind her. For that, I give her credit, as others in the House have done. If it had been a peaceful political time, she might have done rather well as a Prime Minister. But this is not a peaceful time and she has become a loser on the crucial and historic issue of Brexit.
I was of a generation that grew up just after the end of World War II. On a cross-party basis, we dreamed of a better and more prosperous Britain and no more wars. On the crucial vote in the House of Commons on 28 October 1971, I helped 69 Labour Members of Parliament to vote for Europe, despite a three- line Whip against. Then, despite ups and downs, disappointments and unevenness between different regional and local parts of the country, we set upon 40 years of remarkable success.
So, given the outcome of the referendum, I was dismayed and profoundly shocked. However, in the July 2016 post-referendum Lords debate, I said, with great sadness, that:
“Whatever is done is done. …We cannot reverse the outcome by stealth”.
All I could hope for was that Britain would,
“stay as close as possible to our European partners in friendship and to mutual advantage”.—[Official Report, 6/7/16; col. 2039.]
When friends and colleagues began to talk of another referendum, I was warm but sceptical. I assumed that a new era would fall into place, uneasy, diminished in the world and damaging, but—up to a point—credible. But that has not happened. Neither the Government, nor the official Opposition, nor the Brexit ideologues had done their homework in advance in measuring the possible consequences of losing a referendum.
As a result, at every stage through these years, with every new analysis, with every report and with every forecast, the news has been bad and getting worse. The voters at the referendum were wholly unaware of what happened to be the grim future realities. When the Prime Minister reported last month on her visit to the Argentina summit, she said that Britain was looking forward to future trade agreements. She said:
“Once we leave the EU, we can and we will strike ambitious trade deals”,
and,
“forge new and ambitious economic partnerships”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 529.]
Then a week ago, the Foreign Secretary rejoiced at trade prospects in Singapore and Malaysia.
But there is no evidence whatever that there will be frictionless trade to compensate for the loss of European Union business. The long debates in this House on the Trade Bill showed that trade negotiations are always complex, painful and slow. The Prime Minister dreams of the distant sunny uplands, but self-deceit is the most commonplace instinct for all political leaders.
In that respect, for a Conservative Prime Minister with a sense of history, I give high marks to Harold Macmillan both for the wind of change and everything on Europe. Much earlier, in 1938, he published a book called The Middle Way: A Study of the Problem of Economic and Social Progress in a Free and Democratic Society. He wrote about unemployment, insecurity and poverty. Harold Macmillan would be turning in his grave at the outcome of Mrs May’s proposals.
As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said in the incomplete debate in December,
“we are voting in this legislation to make this country poorer”,—[Official Report, 5/12/18; col. 1038.]
and my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said that,
“inequality, poverty and social divisions”,—[Official Report, 5/12/18; col. 1011.]
would not be resolved by the Government’s flawed proposals.
As the Government have spent so much time and energy in getting nowhere, I acknowledge that efforts have been made to find realistic alternatives. All involve risk and uncertainty and the EU27 has its own view, but for me, another referendum is now the overwhelming best option available.
It is not my habit to take part in political marches, but in my 90th year I was proud to join 700,000 men and women in favour of another referendum. If need be, I shall march again.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I spoke about Brexit a few times both before and after the referendum but, as the heavyweight reports to take cognisance of began to pile up, I have been content to leave the heavy lifting to genuine heavyweights such as my noble friends Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay. But at such a momentous juncture in our nation’s affairs, it seems imperative that one should stand up and be counted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Shaws, told me that she had voted against the Third Reading of the withdrawal Bill, although the Opposition considered that to be something of a self-indulgence, because she felt that it was important to have on the record where she stood when the history of these things came to be written. I felt very much the same way but, unfortunately, was not able to be present to vote. I am therefore speaking today to put that record straight.
I remain a pretty unashamed remainer, believing that the country has been guilty of an astonishing act of self-harm from which it needs to be rescued, if at all possible. I say this not just on the grounds of the economic damage it will do, although there is virtual unanimity that it will certainly do that. I am thinking here not so much of the hit to individuals’ living standards as the progressive starvation of resources for public services and social progress. What concerns me even more is the “go it alone” mentality of the Brexiteers which turns its back on internationalism and a spirit of co-operation, which is the only way to make it in today’s world.
There has been consensus in the debate that there are four possible ways forward: Mrs May’s deal, no deal, something else or a people’s vote. Let us dispose of the no-deal option. Those who advocate leaving on WTO terms maintain that Britain has grown its exports to the more than 100 countries with which it trades on WTO terms three times faster than its exports to the EU. To begin with, we should always be wary of statistics that quote comparative growth rates without reference to the level from which the growth started. More importantly, this has been entirely consistent with EU membership. Where is the evidence that we would do any better by leaving the EU? The EU cannot discriminate against WTO members but it cannot discriminate in favour of them either. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, in the event of no deal, far from protecting us from retaliation, WTO rules would oblige the EU to impose the same tariffs and non-tariff barriers on UK goods as it does on those from any other third country. Under WTO rules, the UK could cut tariffs and other barriers to zero for imports from the EU but only if it did so for all other countries as well, which would interfere with our ability to negotiate the trade deals with other countries to which Brexiteers look for so much. Therefore, it is far from clear that the grass is any greener under no deal and WTO.
Mrs May’s deal has few friends but in some respects it is the least worst option—as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, it is the softest of soft Brexits. Yet by common consent it is worse than what we have at the moment. In fact, everything is worse than what we have at the moment. The Prime Minister has therefore been extraordinarily irresponsible in running the clock down in order to set up a choice between her deal and no deal as the only option. If the Prime Minister’s deal is not acceptable there needs to be space to consider other options, such as Norway or a people’s vote, together with any necessary preconditions such as revocation or suspension of Article 50. I am glad to see that the House of Commons is at last being more assertive in seeking to take some control of these issues. Although it is tempting to support the Prime Minister’s deal in preference to no deal, it should be rejected to provide space for returning the issue to the people—the only way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock. I shall therefore support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
I have come to be more troubled than I was by the arguments against a people’s vote—in terms of damage to democracy and trust in politics—but otherwise I do not have much time for them. It is not a second referendum: it is a referendum on a different question in the light of greater knowledge, so this is really the least worst option, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said.
I have a friend who said that he put aside his principled objections to referendums in the pragmatic belief that remain would win. I am prepared to put aside my principled objections to referendums in the pragmatic belief that a second vote is the only way of getting ourselves out of the mess we have got ourselves into. I bumped into the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, the other day. We were both bemoaning the state we had got ourselves into but he said that it might just come out all right. I said, “It might just come out all right if everything goes wrong with the way the Government are trying to manage things”, and I rather hope it does.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I feel like a rarity in this House, in that this is my first speech in the Chamber on Brexit. It is hard to know how much value my six minutes will add among over 130 speeches in the latest of so many debates on this subject. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Low, I think that it is time to stand up and be counted.
The first thing to say is that I do not think that Brexit should be the most important issue facing us right now. I also think that most of the electorate feel the same. The global outlook economically is poor; our public services are in a dreadful state after 10 years of austerity, with a huge staffing crisis facing both the NHS and our schools; the Government’s welfare reforms are in pieces; everything the Transport Secretary touches goes wrong; our prisons are in a dreadful state; and we are going through a mental health crisis, especially among our young people. I could go on. I am desperate for the time and money currently diverted to Brexit to be returned to rebuilding this country.
That said, I believe passionately in the importance of the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour. Our nation’s history as a great trading nation, a great financial centre and a true global heavyweight depends on those principles. They are also the founding principles of the EU and the reason I voted to remain back in the referendum.
And what a catastrophe that referendum has turned out to be. To be fair to the Prime Minister, she was dealt a rubbish set of cards by her predecessor, and, unlike most of the men implicated in this disaster, she has not shown the same sloping shoulders and shed her responsibilities. I believe that she has shown commendable resilience in keeping at it and trying to deliver the mandate to deliver Brexit. That said, she has made an appalling job of playing the cards she was dealt.
It has always been predictable that Brexit needed to mean more than Brexit and that, once it was defined, the divisions in her party would make life very difficult for her. Things could have been very different if Mrs May had chosen to engage across the parties for the last 30 months. As it is, only the inexplicable position on Brexit of Jeremy Corbyn has allowed the Prime Minister to remain in office.
Her political strategy of kicking the can down the road for as long as possible has, however, run out of road. We now have her withdrawal agreement and the accompanying political declaration. We now know what Brexit means. I would like to say that we now have political certainty, but of course we do not. The only certainty that we have is uncertainty. In my commercial work I see the huge damage that this is causing our economy, and this damage comes as we see worrying signs of the next global slowdown just around the corner and few, if any, policy levers available to anyone if that turns into a crash. This uncertainty is at the heart of the Government’s failure and it is why I will support the second Motion in the vote on Monday.
Others have analysed the weaknesses of the agreement better than me, and I particularly value the insights of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but I am especially appalled by the political declaration. How can we agree something that is so vague on our future relationship with the European Union? Our economy, our environment and many parts of our society depend on a close future working relationship with the European Union, and we are offered just 26 pages of good intent in future negotiations.
The other big uncertainty is the current political situation and the likelihood of the withdrawal agreement being defeated next week in the other place. What happens then? As we all have, I have thought long and hard about this. In agreeing to Article 50 being triggered, Parliament respected the referendum result, and both the main parties again respected it with their manifesto positions in the 2017 general election. The Government formed from the Parliament elected have negotiated an agreement with the European Union, and the European Union says that this is the only agreement that can be negotiated—so far so good.
Our problem is that Parliament is unlikely to agree that the agreement is in the national interest. That is not out of disrespect for the democratic process but because representatives are carrying out their duty to,
“act in the interests of the nation as a whole”.
They and we are obliged by oath to vote for what we believe is in the national interest. For reasons debated at length in your Lordships’ House, it is clear to me that the withdrawal agreement is not in that interest.
If Parliament defeats the agreement, I believe there is only one possible next step that respects democracy: we must accept that Parliament has failed to agree terms with the European Union and the question should be put back to the country as a vote of the people. This would not be to repeat the question or to test the view on a no-deal Brexit. Parliament seems clear that no deal is in no one’s interest, and I therefore do not believe that it would legislate to allow it on the ballot. We should instead ask the people whether the withdrawal agreement is better than remaining in the European Union on the current terms—yes or no. That respects the work that the Government and the European Union have done in defining what Brexit looks like, and it respects the will of the people. If they vote yes, we proceed with Brexit on the withdrawal agreement terms; if not, we withdraw Article 50.
I hope we can get there quickly, and that we can then remain in the European Union and drive change from within. Most of all, I hope that we can then get on with fixing so much that is broken in Britain following the catastrophic legacy of David Cameron.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, in a debate on 20 November, at col. 192, I asked the Minister what the Government’s plan B would be if the so-called deal were rejected. I received neither acknowledgement nor answer. I do not expect one today. I am content to wait for the three days after any rejection of the deal in the other place.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the thoughts of the Government have gone no further than the so-called deal and that, in the event of rejection, they contemplate a no-deal Brexit. Of course, I do not know whether this is a crude attempt on the part of the Government to lure Members of the other place into the Lobby in support of the so-called deal, or a policy in default of any other.
We need the Government to be clear and straight- forward with the public. This is not really a deal for the future. It sets out the terms of our withdrawal but does nothing about the future relationship. This is evident from the political declaration, which is misleadingly spoken of as part of the so-called deal. It is merely yet another statement of what we would like and hope for, but is largely unachievable in view of our own self-imposed red lines.
All the arguments remain unresolved about a hard or soft Brexit, Norway or Canada. The arguments currently raging will continue, whatever the outcome, unless there is some real leadership from all parties on where we really want to be. If the so-called deal is accepted, we have until the end of the transition period to resolve that. If we follow the precedent of the last two and a half years, what faith can anyone have in a resolution being achieved? If it is agreed, we have until 29 March to enact the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and all the promised Bills on a multitude of policies and issues.
This provokes some questions. How is it going to be possible for Parliament to do a proper job of examining and scrutinising the legislation, to say nothing of scrutinising and debating the pile of affirmative statutory instruments now building up, given this timetable? Even if we manage to deal with the legislation, can the Government ensure that we will not limit our scope for negotiation again in the transition period, imprisoning ourselves within another set of red lines? Will the ultra-Brexiteers not threaten the Government over that legislation, as they have done to date, to ensure that it becomes more difficult—if not impossible—to negotiate the close relationship with the European Union that the Government tell us they desire?
If the deal is rejected, this will not reduce the amount of legislative work to be done by 29 March. It becomes increasingly clear that, whatever the outcome of the vote in the other place, we have presented ourselves with an almost impossible task through our own incompetence.
We need political leadership to level with people now that it is blindingly obvious that we cannot leave the European Union and retain anything like as advantageous a position as we enjoy as members; we certainly cannot do so if we insist on our red lines and reject the customs union, single market and any involvement of the Court of Justice. I am realistic enough to realise that it is unlikely we will see a withdrawal of Article 50; however, I believe it is vital that we seek an extension so that the alternatives may be explored unfettered by prior red lines.
Your Lordships’ House is required only to consider the proposal, but we can hope that our concerns are noted in the other place. The Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, is the only means of formally registering our concerns. If it is moved, I shall vote for it. I am grateful to her for emphasising the concerns many share about a no-deal scenario. Her Motion also criticises the agreement and the declaration, but they have been challenged across the spectrum of remain and Brexit views. We should not have issued Article 50 before we knew what we hoped to achieve or, indeed, without considering what would be possible. We did it, and we are about to pay the price of our own incompetence unless we can achieve more time for whatever we decide to do.
Parliament has a role to play and, if the proposals are indeed rejected, Parliament must fill the vacuum of political leadership and not abdicate responsibility to another referendum. We must seek a compromise realistically acceptable to our own different parties and factions, and to the European Union, without the fetters of ill-advised red lines. We have had the farce; we must now avoid it turning into tragedy. That needs to be an important consideration for this House and the other place.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, particularly as I agree with everything he said. It is a truism that when two people in an organisation agree, one of them is unnecessary, but I do not think that applies to a legislative Chamber. I did not speak in the last debate. Looking at what has been happening—not just since then but earlier—all I can say is that Brexit has sucked the life out of British politics. We are not functioning as a country anymore because Brexit dominates everything. There is no thinking going on, and problems concerning poverty and the economy, for example, which my noble friend spoke about, are not being dealt with. We have to move forward.
When this process began, with a referendum, it was fairly clear that Northern Ireland would be one of the sources of enormous difficulty. Indeed, I argued at the time that, even if one supported leave in every respect but one, Northern Ireland was a good reason to vote remain. I did not support leave at all but Northern Ireland itself was an argument for voting to remain: there is simply no solution to the problem. I do not see a way forward and nobody has yet been able to suggest one. That is a good argument for thinking again about the whole thing.
There is a way out: to have a customs union and for us to be in it; then, the Northern Ireland border would not be a problem and everything would be fairly straightforward. For some reason, the Government do not like the idea of our being in a customs union. Their argument is that we should be free to negotiate with other countries. But let us look at how well Germany, within the EU, does trade deals with China and with other countries. Many European countries are knocking spots off us and are not at all constrained by being in the EU. Our being in the customs union would not be a constraint on anything. It would be a positive move and very helpful as regards Northern Ireland.
Moving on to Dover, which I visited with the Select Committee some time ago, one of the figures given to us was that it takes less than two minutes to clear a container from within the EU, while it takes an average of one and a quarter hours to clear a container from outside the EU. There is simply no space at Dover even to make the arrangements to look at the loads to see whether they pass the health tests. Frankly, unless we have a seamless operation in Dover, Kent will be a car park. The whole problem of stacking along the M20, which we have seen when there have been problems in Calais with farmers over the years, will be much exacerbated. I do not know what we are going to do, and none of the people who support leave has an answer to it.
I have spent a lot of time knocking on doors during the referendum campaign. I was mainly in Hammersmith, which was 70:30 for remain, so I was not getting a typical picture. Nevertheless, immigration was pretty well the only issue that came up—I suspect that “take back control” was interpreted by people as meaning immigration. I will recount one little doorstep encounter. I was talking to a woman who said she was not going to vote remain because of immigration. I said, “But look at the health service. I had a small procedure carried out in Charing Cross Hospital. I was there for one day, and all the people who treated me—the doctor, nurses and so on—were immigrants. Where would we be without them?” She said something which I thought quite significant: “It’s not the ones who are here that bother me; it’s the ones who are going to come in the future”. That is where Boris Johnson, with his 70 million Turks poised to enter Britain, has a lot to answer for. That was Project Fear, if there ever was.
I believe the referendum showed a strong alienation in this country between people in the north and those in the south, and between people in towns and the countryside and those in cities. It is an alienation for which all political parties are responsible and which we have done very little to tackle. The referendum result was a symptom of people saying, “You don’t care about me, so this is my answer to you: I’m just going to vote against the system”. It was an argument of people who felt that their voices were not being heard.
I believe in a second referendum, but I have argued with myself for quite some time as to whether it is democratic to have another one. People on the other side argue that it is a total breach of faith with the electorate if we ignore the result of the referendum. I honestly do not believe that is so. I believe people are entitled to have their say yet again on the detail when they know what it means. It is a bit like buying a house: you like it and you put in an offer subject to survey; then the survey says that the house is rubbish and there are all sorts of problems, so you withdraw. It is quite legitimate for us to argue that it is democratic to say to the people of this country, “We’re going to give you another chance to have your say now that you know the details”. I do not understand why the people on the leave side of the argument are so frightened of that. If they believe public opinion is still with them, they should have confidence in that.
John Hume, the great Northern Ireland politician and Member of the European Parliament, knew a thing or two about peace processes. He said that the European Union, to his mind, was the most successful peace process in world history.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I was unable to speak last time because I came after the plug was pulled. Then, I was 128th; this time I am 59th, so that is some consolation, I suppose. Coming after so many speakers in both debates who have eruditely expressed what I feel, I will be very specific. My concern is with the effect of the Prime Minister’s deal—or, even worse, the effect of no deal—on our prosperous, life-enhancing, soft power-boosting creative industries, which now contribute more than £1 billion to the UK economy. Why am I concerned? It is because they have massively benefited from our membership of the EU. We live in a golden age of British creativity, which Brexit, in my view, threatens to destroy.
Before the Recess, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, surely a creative industry in himself, led a debate on the impact of Brexit on the arts. Read his speech and shake in your shoes—I think he might say “boots”, but anyway, read it. Crucially, the creative industries rely on people’s ability to move freely across Europe, to work and travel without the need for visas. They rely on the free movement of instruments, equipment or samples without onerous and expensive tariffs, carnets and border checks. They rely on the automatic recognition of qualifications, allowing professionals, such as architects, to continue to practise in the EU. They rely on a digital single market that protects our IP, fought for by the UK from within the EU. They rely on investment from EU funds. They rely on country-of-origin rules, whereby the mutual recognition of broadcasting licences between the UK and the EU has led to this country being the leading hub in Europe for the international broadcasting sector. Some have already made arrangements to move their headquarters from the UK. These freedoms, these mutual agreements, have both facilitated and fuelled the exchange of culture, creativity and expertise, and generated commercial and artistic opportunities.
Of particular concern is the Government’s position on immigration. There are, even before Brexit, 17 creative roles on the Government’s shortage occupation list, but the Government have pledged to end freedom of movement from the EU and to reduce levels of what they refer to as “unskilled migration”, limiting migrants to those who earn more than £30,000. As my noble friend Lord Newby pointed out in last year’s debate, such a move would have severe negative effects on the agricultural, hospitality and care sectors, and I would add the creative industries. Since that first debate the Government have published an immigration White Paper and asked the Migration Advisory Committee to review the shortage occupation list and the definition of “skilled worker”, and to engage businesses and employers as to what salary threshold should be set. However, the White Paper still clearly states, in black and white:
“The MAC recommended retaining the minimum salary threshold at £30,000”.
So there seems to have been movement on the word “unskilled” but not on the threshold. Does the Minister not accept that this is simply semantics?
I am mystified by where “unskilled equals earning less than £30,000” came from. Can the Minister enlighten me? It certainly did not come from anyone who understands or works in the creative sector. Authors in the UK earn an average of just £10,500 per year. Musicians’ earnings are on average around £20,000. Artists, actors and illustrators have similar stories. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said in her speech last year:
“Salary levels are not a proxy for skills”.—[Official Report, 5/12/18; col. 1074.]
Of course, this arbitrary equation disproportionately disadvantages those at the beginning of their careers—more often than not the young.
Creative skills do not easily sit alongside the traditional qualifications and classifications that the Home Office uses to evaluate visa applications. Many creative jobs are for SMEs or freelancers without the resources to employ legal advice or, for that matter, pay the compulsory immigration skills charge that kicks in once we leave Europe.
A number of authors from outside the EEA were refused entry to last year’s Edinburgh International Book Festival because of complications in the visa application process. Is this a precursor of things to come? Will European artists be deterred from performing in the UK? As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has said:
“Free movement is a two-way street”,—[Official Report, 5/12/18; col. 1078.]
because there is significant and important movement of the creative sector from the UK to the rest of the EU, but so important is the mantra “Take back control”—into which, let us face it, is inextricably wrapped “no more freedom of movement”—that the Government do not listen.
Last October a group of musicians wrote an open letter laying out the problem. Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg MP’s response was, “Handel did not need the free movement of people to come to England to write ‘The Messiah’”. A signatory of said letter, the composer Howard Goodall, did some homework, and Handel did. Mr Goodall wrote:
“A bespoke Act of Parliament had to be passed in 1727 precisely because free movement was not available to him”.
I fear there would not be enough parliamentary time these days. Perhaps the Minister has a view. Neither Howard Goodall nor I is arguing that writers will not write, musicians not compose and artists not paint because of Brexit. It is the performing, touring and promoting—the essential cross-fertilisation of collaboration—that are threatened.
Liberal Democrats have consistently made the case for remaining in the EU because we know there is no deal better than the deal we have as members of the EU—certainly not the chaotic, incoherent place in which we are now. The British people must be involved when a final deal emerges. We are a democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said, we have elections, which allow us to change our minds. That is democracy.
To return to the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, in his debate on the arts he said:
“A referendum is not a sacred document”.—[Official Report, 11/10/18; col. 241.]
I could not agree more. We need a people’s vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, it is the people, not the politicians, who deserve the final say. I believe that this is what people want.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister is inviting the House of Commons to approve the withdrawal agreement she has made with the European Union. I am a remainer but, like my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, I have reconciled myself to accepting that, if the House of Commons were to approve that agreement, we should leave the European Union in accordance with the mandate in the referendum of June 2016. However, it seems possible—even probable—that there will be no majority for it. Indeed, with the House of Commons as it is now constituted, the only thing for which there probably is a majority is a determination not to leave the EU on 29 March with no deal. But that is the prospect that faces us imminently if the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement is not approved.
It is widely accepted that there would be serious economic consequences from crashing out of the EU without a deal—certainly in the short term and probably in the longer term. Some Brexiteers are trying to reassure us by saying, “Don’t worry, it may never happen”. This does not seem a very good basis for sailing confidently into what the Prime Minister has described as uncharted waters. There is too much reason to think that at least some of it will happen. Indeed, it is already beginning to happen.
The clock is at five minutes to midnight. There are a bare 11 weeks to 29 March. There is not enough time before then to negotiate a different deal, even if the EU were prepared to do so. There is not enough time to organise and carry out a second referendum, even if it were thought necessary or desirable to hold one. The immediate priority must be to move back from the cliff edge, postpone the deadline and give ourselves more breathing space.
As far as I can see, there are two ways of doing this. We could seek to defer the deadline and set a new date. Or we could revoke our notice of withdrawal from the EU, which the European Court of Justice has explicitly confirmed that we can do unilaterally. The trouble about simply deferring the deadline is that this would do little to diminish the extent to which Brexit is dominating and distorting public and parliamentary business and industrial and commercial activities. Nor would it mitigate the uncertainty, rancour and deep divisions bedevilling the situation at present. Before long, a new deadline would present us with a new cliff edge.
Given the present state of the House of Commons, it is prudent to assume that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to conclude a deal with the EU that would meet with parliamentary approval in this Parliament. So, if the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement is rejected by the other place next week, I believe that she should, without further delay, revoke the notice of withdrawal from the European Union on 29 March and undertake that there will be no further decision to give notice of withdrawal during the life of the present Parliament. That would avoid the perils and tribulations of leaving the EU with no deal. It would give more time to consider in detail and discuss with the EU what we would like to achieve in a permanent relationship with an EU of which we are not a member. It would give more time to legislate for and organise a referendum, if that were thought desirable.
I am not arguing for a second referendum, but the constituency has changed since June 2016, with some older voters dropping out and some newer voters coming in. We hear a lot about the 17 million who voted to leave but less about the 16 million who voted to remain. The majority in the 2016 referendum was relatively narrow, and I do not think it would be undemocratic to give the people an opportunity to confirm their views or change their minds in the light of all that has happened and become known since June 2016. Revoking the notice of withdrawal would enable the Government and Parliament to find time to address the many other important issues on which progress has been delayed or frustrated by the administrative and legislative complexities of Brexit.
For the time being, the Prime Minister has nothing to fear from threats of a no-confidence vote from the vultures on the Back Benches of her party in the House of Commons. She has said she will not lead her party into the next election. So she is in a strong position to exercise the responsibilities of her position as our Prime Minister in the national interest.
If the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement is rejected in the other place, it will be very much in the national interest that we should not leave the EU on 29 March with no deal, and that we should be able to consider our long-term relationship with the EU without the deadline hanging over us at present like a sword of Damocles. These suggestions are offered in pursuit of the doctrine I associate with the late Lord Healey:
“When you’re in a hole, stop digging”.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, but I disagree almost entirely with every word he uttered.
It has come to this. After two and a half years of trench warfare by remainers, it is Parliament against the people—or at least most of Parliament against the majority of the people. As the broadcast media continues to pour out its anti-Brexit propaganda, who can be surprised that tempers are becoming frayed? Who is going to feel responsible as events unfold?
All great issues are, I believe, essentially very simple. We make them complicated when we do not want to face them. The plain fact is that we leave the European Union on 29 March. Remain fanatics both inside and outside Parliament have fought tooth and nail to obstruct the decision taken in 2016. They pretended they were trying to improve the situation, but all their suggestions have been nothing more than distractions, sideshows and ruses, designed for one purpose: to stop us leaving. Starting with the judicial review, we have had a meaningful vote, withdrawal agreements, second referendums, people’s votes, backstops, the postponement or revocation of Article 50 and, last but not least, a general election.
As far as I can see, there is little point in pursuing any of those ideas further or in further discussions. The arguments are increasingly circular and are leading us absolutely nowhere. Divisions are deep and abiding. The trouble is that when discussion stops, friction becomes more likely, and who is going to be held to blame for that? The only sensible, positive and optimistic way forward is for us to accept that we are leaving the EU on 29 March and to make all the necessary arrangements as quickly as possible.
Can we please slay the last big bogeyman, that leaving without a deal will be disastrous? Let us have no more hysterical talk, and sadly we have heard it again today, of crashing out—the BBC is, I think, the worst offender—of cliff edges and of catastrophes? There is never really any detail of how and why those things could, or should, arise.
Can I make a plea? Can I urge remainers not to continue their virulent disparagement of our leaving without a deal? It helps no one. My noble friend Lord Lilley, who knows much about these things, has set out detailed reasons why leaving without a formal deal is workable and indeed has many advantages. He understands the position, I believe, better than anyone. Time does not permit me to list them all here but I would like to mention some. The UK will not pay its £39 billion divorce bill. It avoids a transition period and we can get on with things straight away. There is no need for an Irish backstop. The UK as a whole will be able to enter a Canada-plus-plus-type deal. The WTO is a safe haven, not a hard option. UK exports to countries trading on WTO rules have grown three times faster than to the EU. I could go on. My noble friend deals with most of the issues that we are concerned with, in my opinion, very adequately.
By statute, we leave the EU on 29 March. Only by statute can this be stopped, and that would be a truly disastrous course of action. The only way possible to bring together the different factions in this issue, and at the same time move the nation forward to a better and more positive future, is to put our differences behind us if we can and set ourselves a common goal. I suggest that my noble friend Lord Lilley’s proposals show us the way.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, opened by expressing his total disagreement with what the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, had said. I am going to repay the compliment by saying that I did not agree with one word of what he said.
We are in a position today where we are waiting to see if the Government can produce that little bit of magic—parliamentary magic—in the next few days that will save the Prime Minister’s deal with the EU. The Prime Minister is rummaging around for a winning formula, including, I read today, contemplating possible guarantees that workers’ rights will be aligned with the EU indefinitely. I have to say that the TUC is very sceptical about the Government’s sincerity, given their record of hostility stretching back so many years on this particular subject. But I am glad that, at long last—and it has been a long time—the Government are beginning to reach out beyond the Conservative Party, although it seems far too late to garner additional support for any deal that will be put to the other place next Tuesday. There should have been this process at the start of the proceedings, after the referendum result. The Government should have led a process that got people together to decide the most practical way of dealing with the referendum result and with the European Union in future. Instead, we are faced with the discussion at the 11th hour, as the Government face, desperately, a pretty bleak prospect next Tuesday. Trapped by her own red lines and a fractious party, the Prime Minister is likely to be forced to come up with a plan B next week. It is that prospect that I would like to address briefly this afternoon.
Plan B surely cannot be no deal, which would be a recipe for chaos across a wide range of this nation’s activities, including a hard Irish border. The noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Framlingham, might ignore that particular inconvenient truth, but a hard Irish border is not something anybody with a knowledge of the history of Ireland would fancy. It is a desperate situation. There would be huge pressures at the ports, as we have already heard from previous speakers, and no doubt we would find ourselves quickly approaching EU countries again to help us out of the mess in the event of having gone down the no-deal route. This time, it would be against a backdrop of chaos and disruption.
The Prime Minister famously said that,
“no deal is better than a bad deal”.
Now she has come back with a bad deal, including a vacuous, aspirational political declaration about the future, which is no more than a wish list, and a programme for intensive talks over the next two years designed, ironically, to get us as close as possible to the current status quo as we can get. The deal to be voted on in the other place next week is a mechanism for more uncertainty, not less. It gives no security but offers insecurity, lots of rows and more and more dislocation. I certainly cannot support it but will support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. But let us be clear that no deal is the default option. It will happen on 29 March unless there is an alternative plan. The need for such a plan is therefore now urgent. If the Cabinet cannot come up with one, Parliament must rise to the occasion and do so.
The PM recently added the third possibility of no Brexit, admittedly more as a threat than a real option. But it should be crystal clear to everyone that anything that a UK Government can negotiate will be less favourable than our current membership—less favourable in almost every respect: economic, trade, security, financial services, science, education and culture, all will be worse than the status quo. The reason given for not recognising that is that we must respect the result of the 2016 referendum. I take that very seriously—I initially held that view—but the cost, the disruption and the risk to jobs, workers’ rights and the economy have become clear. The dangers are all too tangible and cannot be airily dismissed as yet another Project Fear. When the facts change, you should change your mind, as a famous economist famously advised—or as a wise miners’ leader said, we should be,
“a movement not a monument”.
I therefore favour asking the British people to take a fresh look at the position, through a people’s vote, with a firm remain option on the ballot. We are unfortunately a long way from that situation. I cannot yet see a solid majority for that option in the other place, and both the main parties’ Front Benches are not in favour, at least yet. If the Commons goes for that option, obviously the Electoral Commission could have a tricky job in sorting out and securing support for the appropriate question.
One other option should therefore be kept in play: the compromise option of remaining in the EEA and rejoining EFTA. I hope noble Lords will have a chance to read two pamphlets, one by my noble friend Lord Lea and Michael-James Clifton of the EFTA Court, and the other by Lucy Powell MP and Robert Halfon MP. These set out clearly how this option could be made to work through retaining membership of the single market and the customs union while leaving the EU with no problems in relation to the Irish border. It might just be an acceptable compromise. It is perhaps everyone’s second-best, but it should not be ruled out too easily at this stage.
In conclusion, we must encourage the other place—which has huge decisions to take—to be statesman- and stateswomanlike and prompt them to rise to the occasion and give a lead to the nation. The Cabinet has been failing to do that. Now, at last, it is Parliament’s turn, and we, and especially the other place, cannot afford to fail.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monks, because I too agree with the conclusion that he has reached. I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Many powerful reasons have been given in the debate in December and over the last day or so that support that view. There is, however, one issue I wish to raise that is different, but which illustrates the problems that this deal will cause. In my view, we should focus on the longer-term effects of the deal and what it does for our future negotiations. That issue relates to the position of the UK as the leading centre in the world for international, commercial and business litigation. It is chosen by countries and businesses from all over the world. I appreciate that, in speaking about work for lawyers, I am not adopting a cause that wins universal popularity. However, it is important to recognise the substantial contribution, measured in billions, that this work provides for the UK economy and, importantly, for Her Majesty’s Treasury.
After the referendum, a good deal of work was done by the legal profession and the judiciary on what was needed to safeguard the pre-eminence of the United Kingdom by ending the uncertainty on which our competitors were starting to rely and providing the certainty that those negotiating a jurisdiction clause require. In late 2016, a paper was presented to the Ministry of Justice and other arms of government. In the summer of 2017, the Government were asked urgently to take a number of steps, and particularly to work with the EU to ensure that there is a simple and flexible regime for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments on our departure from the EU, when we would cease to be a party to the EU regime. In August 2017, the Government published a paper for partnership, with cross-border civil judicial co-operation with the EU after we leave. This was a pragmatic and realistic way forward, which I fully supported then and support now. It would provide the certainty so badly needed and support the ongoing work that the judiciary and the legal profession are undertaking to try to preserve the pre-eminence of the UK in this area.
The question for me is the effect of the deal on the position of London and the rest of the United Kingdom. Plainly, the continuation of the status quo by the withdrawal agreement presents no problem in itself, but the all-important political declaration is a matter on which I wish to focus. It provides nothing of the Government’s August 2017 proposals on the enforcement of civil judgments. I surmise that this is not because the Government have changed their mind, but rather that this was one of the matters that they were unable to include in the political declaration. Why is that? It is not because of its lack of importance, but because the negotiating position of the UK has become so weak, for the reasons given, even at a time when we still have leverage through the financial contribution that we are to make.
The next stage of the negotiations is more important. In considering that, we ought to look at the position of the EU 27, as their attitude is a vital factor. In this area, they are our competitors—and they have not been idle. In Paris and Amsterdam, commercial courts have been recently established where the proceedings are conducted entirely in English. They are being actively promoted as a much better alternative to the UK because their judgments will be recognised and enforceable across the EU and because of the certainty of their position. Germany and Belgium are considering doing the same. Last Friday, the Taoiseach was reported to have said that the Irish Bar Council and the Law Society took the view that,
“one of the areas that could benefit from Brexit are legal services, on the basis that Ireland could … take some business from the UK”.
Once lost, this work, which contributes so much to our economy, would be difficult to get back.
Let me turn briefly to the next stage of the negotiations. It is inevitable from the deal that the UK’s negotiating position will be very much weaker in many respects. The deal in effect enables our former partners in the EU to control the pace and outcome of the negotiations to their advantage and to our disadvantage, particularly through the leverage that the backstop provides. I agree with the many who have pointed to the multitude of other flaws in the deal. Long and complex negotiations—for that is what they will now be—will advantage our competitors in the EU 27, as they will be able to continue to exploit the uncertainty so caused. For this and for all the other reasons given during this debate, the deal looked on as a whole, and its medium and long-term effects, will have a very damaging effect. In my view, those who must make the decision in the other place would be well advised to reject it.
I see the force of the point about the dilemma we all face in the UK, as made so eloquently by many, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The issue for the decision-makers is to weigh the manifest disadvantages of this deal against the alternative courses of action which have been explored in the debate. By my support of the Motion, I would rule out a no deal, but in my view the other alternatives, for the reasons given by others which I need not repeat, are all options that will do much less serious medium and long-term harm to the UK economy than entering into this deal. I include within the other options another referendum, as it is clear that the effect of Brexit will be greatest on the young generation. They should be given the chance to express their views in the light of what is now known.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. He has given me yet another reason why I should support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I wondered whether, having spoken in the original incarnation of this debate, I should take part in its successor, but 6 December seems so long ago and the ground is shifting, so I feel justified in taking another bite at Brexit.
In December I voiced my concerns about the withdrawal agreement and its concentration on trade in goods while it is services that are pivotal to the UK economy. Those concerns have been deepened by the latest news from the Office for National Statistics. Yesterday it reported that, in the third quarter of last year, production in the services sector was just 0.1% higher than a year earlier. That is the slowest growth rate in two years and a very bad omen for our economy since services account for three-quarters of our earning power. If that sector does not grow at a decent rate, nor will the economy as a whole. We should not be surprised by these gloomy numbers. It is the uncertainty over what Brexit really means for services, particularly financial services, which has forced organisations to take the wise precaution of preparing for the worst. Research just published by Ernst & Young shows that, since 2016, financial services companies have announced plans to move around £800 billion-worth of staff, operations and customer funds out of the UK to the other EU 27 countries. Gradually, those moves are happening. Day by day, jobs, money and investment are leaving the UK.
As we contemplate that massive hit being inflicted on our economy, it is worth reminding ourselves just what in theory we will save by leaving the EU. The ONS tells us that in 2016 our net contribution was £9.4 billion. Remember that I have just mentioned the sum of £800 billion leaving the UK. That £9.4 billion is only 1.2% of government expenditure, and that is before taking account of any of the money that flows from the EU back to the private sector in this country.
EU membership in 2016 cost us just 39p per person per day. That is very much less than the business being haemorrhaged out of the country now. Just think what that 39p bought us in benefits, not least the ongoing security and peace that we have enjoyed for so long.
I have listened to those noble Lords who have assured us that Britain will be great again and we must go forth with confidence. My noble friend Lord True, while urging us to look to the future, declared yesterday that,
“the world out there is as big and round now as it was in 1492 and people are waiting to do business with us”.—[Official Report, 9/1/19; col. 2272.]
What are they waiting for? We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that Germany and other EU countries are already strong within the EU, doing much more in export markets than the UK. It is not membership of the EU that is holding us back. It might be products; it might be services; it might be our abysmal productivity, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said yesterday, but it is not membership of the EU. If my noble friend Lord True knows those countries and those people who are waiting to do business with us, could he just urge them not to wait any longer? We would very much welcome them now.
Neither do I believe that it is a lack of functioning ports that is holding us back. Nevertheless, I hoped that the Brexit chaos might have produced just a small nugget of good news with the plans to reinvigorate Ramsgate as a freight port. A few years ago, the Royal Military Canal in Hythe was being dredged. Along its length there were big placards declaring that this work was being in part funded by the EU and bearing the wonderful slogan, “Dredging for a better future”. I pledged that I would do my best to find an occasion when I could use that slogan. When I heard what was going on in Ramsgate, it seemed to me that this, at least, might be an example of the Government dredging for a better future. Yesterday, however, the Mayor of Ostend put paid to that. He told the BBC that it was “completely impossible” that Ostend would be ready to cope with freight ferries from Ramsgate any time soon, and certainly not by 29 March this year. Whatever is going on in Ramsgate, I am afraid that it is not dredging for a better future. In fact, there is no better future ahead at the moment. It looks unutterably gloomy.
Brexit is not Brexit: it is an embarrassing shambles. Whether it is this deal or no deal, it is not in the interests of this country. The only democratic way to determine what happens next is to give the people a vote on whether they want to proceed with this nonsense or stop it. My belief is that, at 39p per person per day, they will decide that staying in the EU is a very sensible thing to do and will vote to remain. After that, business could invest with confidence, people could move freely around Europe, and the embarrassing exercise that this national hara-kiri is amounting to could be abandoned.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said. I feel some constraint, as we were earlier advised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that we were addressing a Bill to leave the EU. I will therefore try to limit my remarks for the most part to how we could get a better outcome while still leaving the EU. I think that his words have been touched on by my noble friend Lord Monks.
To give some shape to what I want to say, I will deal with issues of substance such as the single market and the customs union, which address questions such as Dover/Calais and the Irish border. However, there are then endless issues of process, ranging from the role of Parliament to a general election, a referendum or perhaps tossing a coin. The two are quite separate but get mixed up.
On what I call the substance, the Institute for Government said the other day that there is a spectrum of trade-offs and we have to decide where there can be any sort of parliamentary majority between those trade-offs. That is exactly right on where we are today. There can be such a majority in the area, as has been said, of moving from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 of the European Economic Area. By the way, I have heard it said in the Corridor, “Who’s ever heard of the EEA?” I do not know how many of the people who say that sort of thing fly to Alicante or some other part of the continent for their holidays and come back to Gatwick. If they do, they will have to queue under a big heading saying “EEA”—or, to be a bit more technical, “EEA and Switzerland”. Perhaps I can ask the Minister to check before Monday so that he has time to get an answer to this question: what will happen to the EEA queue at Alicante or at Gatwick?
Lord Lea of Crondall
Apart from getting longer, will it still be there at all and who will be able to go through it?
I would like to stay in the single market and the customs union. The pamphlet that I helped to prepare points out—Liberal Democrats please note—how it could be done successfully. My basic difference from the Government’s proposal is that we would stay long-term in the single market and in the customs union or, if you want to use the indefinite article, “a” customs union negotiated with the EU, which I think would be roughly the same thing. As far as I understand it, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, the objections to doing that are not from Brussels, as those requirements or suggestions were requested, but from London—ideological objections because of certain parts of the Conservative Party.
Someone made the remark in this context that they feel “trapped”. I think it was the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who asked, “How do we get out of this trap?” We are not the only people who are trapped: people in Bolton are trapped and see their public services and industry disappearing all at the same time. My noble friend Lord Grocott made the very valid observation that people feel that they are on the dumping ground of history. Without mentioning Professor Trump—actually he is not a professor, is he? I do not think he can even read a book. Without mentioning President Trump, we are aware of that sort of politics.
To go further on to the point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Monks, I say that earlier in the year we tabled an amendment to have a parliamentary role in a mandate. In a trade union you have a mandate, and then you have the executive look at the results of the negotiation by reference to the mandate. That was not done, which was a pity. It was the Commons that rejected it, not the Lords. If there had been such a mandate we would have been a little further forward, such as looking at the proto-treaty that emerged on 20 December, when we were on our way home for Christmas, about the EFTA/EU separation agreement.
I would like to ask the Minister to reply on Monday about how, if we did wish to synchronise the clocks of leaving the EU and rejoining EFTA, that would work. Would that be compatible with the proto-treaty published on 20 December?
In conclusion, the idea that the EEA is incapable of reform is not the case. It was always intended by Jacques Delors that it would evolve. It would be a different organisation with Britain back in it; there is no doubt about that. On the objection that, when we have left the table, we would not have a vote, even Boris Johnson’s logic surely would not demand that we leave the table, pay no money and yet complain about not having a vote.
I will finish where I began. To get out of the mess that we are in at the moment we are very much hoping that there will be support in both Houses—as I think there will be—for the emergence of some sort of interest in an amendment next week that we stay within the European Economic Area.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I hope that when he replies, the Minister will have noted the strong speech from the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, just now, that the Conservative Party’s internal confusion over Brexit distracts the Government from Britain’s underlying problems of inequality, poor productivity, poor housing and the north/south divide. Resentment over those neglected problems drove a large part of the vote to leave. Failure to address them will leave the country bitterly divided, whether we leave the EU or stay.
I want to challenge the deliberately misleading claims being made about the financial implications of the EU withdrawal agreement and the impact of withdrawal from the EU in the long term. On Monday the Prime Minister, announcing the new 10-year plan for the NHS, said that the extra financing would be available because,
“we will no longer be sending vast annual sums to Brussels ... with no increase to people’s taxes”.
David Davis, on the BBC “Today” programme on Tuesday, declared that leaving without a deal would free us from any future financial obligations, thus giving the Government a full £15 billion a year to redistribute to other spending programmes.
Yes, the UK has been a net contributor to the EU budget. We are the second-largest contributor, after Germany, as a wealthy country with a large population—though in terms of contributions per head we are the fifth largest, after the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Denmark. We should also remember that Norway contributes more per head to this explicitly redistributive budget, as a rich non-member which benefits from access to the single market. We have developed common institutions and agencies which have saved us money through sharing resources, and which will cost us more to set up again on our own. We have benefited from common programmes, which, when we leave, we will have to fund ourselves. And we have contributed to Europe’s global role in an uncertain world: a global Britain within a global Europe, rather than against a global Europe.
When we joined the European Economic Community in 1973, George Thomson, the British Commissioner, set up the Regional Development Fund to assist poorer regions across the member states, through which funds flowed back to peripheral regions, including within Scotland and the rest of the UK. Margaret Thatcher—of whom I know the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is a particular proponent—declared in her Bruges speech in 1988 that Prague, Warsaw and Budapest were also part of Europe. Successive British Governments championed eastern enlargement, from 1990 on; and funds thereupon began to flow, including from our contribution, to the poorer states of eastern Europe and to others outside the EU in the European neighbourhood—more than to France, Italy or Spain. That has been a shared investment in European security, since the end of the Cold War.
We have not yet negotiated the terms of our future relationship, but Ministers have repeatedly stated that they want the UK to remain closely associated with many of the EU’s existing programmes—from Horizon 2020 and its successor fund for research and innovation to the Erasmus student exchange programme, to Europol and the intelligence networks which contribute to our shared security, and to the European Defence Agency, which supports co-operation in defence procurement. It would damage our economy to cut ourselves off from commonly funded trans-European networks in energy and telecommunications. Ministers have promised that we will continue to pay our share of these programmes in return for continuing participation. The political declaration on the future relationship refers to a,
“fair and appropriate financial contribution”,
in return for UK participation in these.
The Government have not yet told us how much it will cost to replace EU spending within the UK on programmes from which we will withdraw—agricultural and environmental support, financial transfers for our poorest regions, and funding for scientific research and universities, if we do not remain within those EU programmes. Even the hardiest Brexit supporters seem to think that these funds will somehow continue to flow. Sir John Redwood declared last week that Brexit would allow us to cut tariffs and grow more of our own food. How we will manage to grow more of our own food without financial support for agriculture I simply do not understand. No one in the referendum campaign explained that Britain benefited from the many common institutions and agencies that we share with other EU states.
Now that we are leaving, we are spending heavily on duplicating those institutions. We need an upgraded national medicines agency, for instance; we are already recruiting additional diplomats to manage our bilateral relations with our European partners and others; we now have a new Department for International Trade. The Institute for Government recently reported that Defra has increased its staff by two-thirds since the referendum to handle repatriated agricultural and environmental regulation. HMRC estimates that it needs 5,000 more staff and a complex new computer system. Border Force is woefully short of staff and is actively recruiting. We cannot take back control of our coasts and waters without a substantial increase in HM Coastguard and more maritime patrol vessels. On top of what has already been spent, the Chancellor announced in December a further £2 billion for Brexit preparations distributed across 25 government departments, bringing spending on Brexit so far close to £5 billion. No doubt there will be more to come.
David Davis’s dream of leaving Europe without any further commitments assumes that our continental partners will continue to co-operate with us whatever we do and however we behave. Less reckless politicians understand that borders cannot be managed, nor trade maintained, without active co-operation with neighbours, so talk of some sort of “managed no deal” floats around. After all, we have 1,000 Border Force staff in France, Belgium and the Netherlands at present to speed travellers and goods across the Channel. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, expects that they will stay there so that there will continue to be frictionless trade. If we want them to stay in post and still benefit from other shared networks, we cannot simply walk away from the legacy costs of EU membership, as David Davis and the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Framlingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in this debate all want to deny.
There is, therefore, no Brexit dividend. It is a sign of desperation that the Prime Minister is now claiming what Boris Johnson put on the side of the bus, which the Chancellor must have told her is nonsense. Brexit is already imposing substantial extra costs on the British Government. It will impose longer-term costs, both on the budget and on the wider economy.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, many of us hoped that the holiday season would clear our minds and lift the Brexit fog, but, alas, the fuzziness remains and has come back with a vengeance. More worryingly, the ideological divides between and within families, communities and political parties show little sign of being resolved, let alone healed.
Yet the eyes of the world are on us, particularly from the business community, whose primary focus is to secure a timely decision and path to certainty, especially at a moment when the headwinds of the global business cycle are turning against us. Our international reputation for political stability and mature, predictable and rational decision-making has already been dented. The actions of Parliament in the coming days and weeks will determine how the UK continues to be perceived by global investors, with very real economic consequences.
With fewer than 80 days to go before the expiry of the Article 50 period, this is not a time for political handwringing. There is plenty of evidence from Hansard of advice ignored and warnings neglected. The time for protracted debate has ended; it is time to decide. Extending the Article 50 period is unlikely to produce a fundamentally different set of choices or trade-offs that we are not already aware of. At this stage in the life of a complex negotiation it is not about tinkering with individual clauses but evaluating the balance of advantage of the deal, taken as a whole, compared to other credible and deliverable alternatives—to govern is to choose. That is why brinkmanship has its natural limits. Indeed, it feels like brinkmanship is the order of the day, whether between the US Congress and the White House on the federal budget, Washington and Beijing on trade tariffs or the Janus-like face-off on Brexit between the Prime Minister, Parliament and Brussels simultaneously.
Taking things to the wire can play a legitimate part in a robust negotiation and help test boundaries, but in international diplomacy there are limitations on playing poker with people’s lives and livelihoods. We should also remember that an open hand holds more than a closed fist. As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, reminded us in the previous debate, Brexit is,
“a process, not an event”.—[Official Report, 5/12/08; col. 1000.]
We are barely at the end of the beginning so we will need to draw upon a store of good will with our European partners over many years—it is the end destination that matters most.
That is why leaving the EU without a negotiated withdrawal agreement has no credibility. The Justice Secretary rightly describes no deal as a unicorn. But, sadly, there are still enough MPs willing to chase the unicorn who can block the Prime Minister’s deal. They will continue to do so, however many times she brings a vote back to Parliament and regardless of any further assurances received. It is therefore abundantly clear and has been since last July, when the Chequers plan was unveiled, that a deal cannot secure approval without the support of opposition MPs.
The only viable path for the Prime Minister following the outcome of next Tuesday’s vote is to conduct a discovery process aimed at establishing whether there are enough opposition MPs willing to set aside their party Whip and act in the national interest to support an alternative Brexit plan. To draw an analogy with financial markets, a clearing price is often discovered through a book-building process to gauge demand at different levels. It is this type of process of indicative votes that is required to help determine the next steps.
Opposition parties, once they have exhausted their inevitable attempt at holding a no-confidence vote in the Government, should allow Parliament to have a series of free votes and enable MPs to reveal their true preferences. It is likely that such a process will confirm that the House of Commons opposes no deal, as the amendments to the Finance Bill have already signalled, and that MPs prefer a softer form of Brexit, perhaps tilted more towards Norway than Canada.
Some will inevitably view this as a betrayal of Brexit, but it simply reflects the change in parliamentary arithmetic following the 2017 general election. It also reflects the consequences of a simple, binary referendum. There are at least 17.4 million versions of Brexit and no settled consensus on which path to pursue.
The Prime Minister, to her credit, has tried to chart a middle course that strikes a balance between safeguarding prosperity and regaining sovereignty. The more difficult part to swallow is not the backstop but the flimsy nature of the future framework and the absence of any interconditionality with payments being made to the EU. To use a financial markets analogy again, we have simply secured a £39 billion option value on negotiating a trade deal. Some would consider this an expensive option but, in the context of a £2 trillion economy, it is a bearable price to pay.
What is less bearable is replacing one form of uncertainty with another. We have limited control over the future timetable and cannot impose any sanction or penalty on the EU if a deal is not finalised by the end of 2020. In fact, my noble friend Lord Macpherson has suggested that it will take us until the middle of the next decade to finalise a future deal. So we are forced to take much on trust and must be prepared for an extended period in Brexit limbo. It is ironic that the foremost of the Prime Minister’s 12 negotiating objectives in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 was delivering certainty and clarity. I have previously described the situation we find ourselves in as a grubby compromise, but it is a necessary compromise if we are to find a way through that reconciles so many conflicting objectives, pressures and realities.
I sincerely hope that Parliament can solve this most difficult of Rubik’s cubes, but we must be prepared for the very real possibility of a blocking minority for every option, resulting in deadlock. In those circumstances, we will rapidly become a zombie Parliament and lose all remaining authority. In such a situation, a fresh democratic process—whether a referendum or general election—will become inevitable.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I had intended my contribution in your Lordships’ debate before Christmas to be my first and last speech on the subject of Brexit but, as speaker number 93 in that debate, I do not think that my words carried a great deal of weight, and those who thought otherwise will have read them in Hansard over Christmas. Either way, I intend not to repeat what I said then but to make a couple of comments on what seems to have happened in the meantime.
First, it is my perception that few, if any, of those involved in this debate have changed their views. If anything, most people both in and outside politics appear to be further entrenched in their opinions. There seems to be no evidence that the Government have won any substantive concessions from the EU in relation to the backstop. Consequently, there is a widely held view that the DUP has not changed its opposition to the Prime Minister’s deal, and I doubt that the ERG has either. All in all, I think it is widely accepted that the Government’s withdrawal agreement will probably be rejected by the other place next week.
A number of noble Lords have concluded—some of them, it seems to me, reluctantly—that one way forward is to have a second referendum or a people’s vote. Other noble Lords who have spoken have rejected this as impractical, unrealistic and likely to increase the unpleasant and divisive nature of the current debates. I agree with that view but, more importantly, I note that the head of steam that was seen to be gathering in favour of a people’s vote before Christmas has subsided since then, and I perceive that there is no real desire, except within a very small group of remainers, to pursue this option.
Similarly, but for other reasons, it seems unlikely that there will be a general election. If the withdrawal agreement is indeed rejected, the DUP will probably support the Government in a vote of no confidence and few, if any, Tories will vote against their own party. Clearly, a significant number of Labour MPs, fearing either deselection or their leader’s unsuitability for high office, do not want an election either.
Despite the convolutions of Motions and amendments in the other place designed to avoid a no-deal Brexit or possibly any Brexit at all, it is a fact that both Houses have, by significant majorities, put in place two pieces of legislation that ensure that we will leave the EU on 29 March. Only the Government can initiate repeals of or substantial amendments to that legislation, and as of today that is not going to happen. We could of course, as noble Lords have said, seek to delay Article 50, but this requires the agreement of all 27 EU countries and it seems that that will be forthcoming only if the delay is for a specific reason. It also requires the Government, not Parliament, to execute this, and as of Tuesday the Government have confirmed that that will not happen.
If all that is correct, the assumption is that all that is left to debate is the manner of our departure. Presumably, one option is to go back to the EU, as several noble Lords have said, and accept Mr Tusk’s offer, repeated by Mr Barnier, of a Canada-plus-style deal. It is not perfect and there would be undoubted problems, mostly due to the short timetable, but there is no doubt that we could make it work and make it work well. It has previously been rejected on the basis that it did not solve the Irish border question. But as the United Kingdom Government have made clear, we will not erect a hard border, the Irish Government have confirmed that they will not, and now Mr Juncker has confirmed that the European Union will not. The problem of a hard border, which should never have been raised in the first place, has now largely evaporated.
The most likely scenario is that we will leave the EU without a deal on WTO terms. I recognise that many of your Lordships find this prospect alarming, frightening even. I respect those concerns. Most of them, if not all, have been addressed. If both the CEO of the port of Dover and his counterpart in Calais say that they have the resources in place to manage those changes, the onus is on those who disagree to explain exactly why, rather than simply shouting the odds repeatedly. For example, the pharmaceutical industry consists of many well-managed businesses. The idea that they have made no preparations in the last two years and are simply waiting for their UK markets to implode is ludicrous. They will manage the changes and risks in the same way that business always does.
I do not know whether Brexit will be chaos, or another millennium bug. When men such as my noble friend Lord Bamford, who is sadly not in his place today, Sir James Dyson and Sir Rocco Forte—who all personally lead their own world-class international businesses, on which their family fortunes and reputations have been built and depend—publicly state that they are confident that they will thrive on WTO terms, I take some comfort.
Let us put aside talk of people’s votes and general elections, which are not going to happen, and of delaying Article 50 or employing devious parliamentary devices to make the Government’s life more difficult. Let us focus on a successful departure from the EU on 29 March. Your Lordships can help this process or hinder it. The British people will be justifiably angry with those who put political point-scoring above our country’s best interests, which involve completing Brexit as best we can.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, if there were no other reason for supporting the Motion before us today, for me it would be Ireland. So much was achieved in the Good Friday agreement, but that was only a beginning. The immense amount of dedicated, practical work happening at all levels on intercommunal relations has been important in building a secure, stable future for Northern Ireland. What has facilitated that is the reality that, as members of the European Union, a minority in Northern Ireland felt that there was an equivalence because they had the charter and the European Union’s position on human rights as a context, not just a traditional British approach to justice.
The question raised in this debate is this: what has changed since December? For me, a great deal has changed. Over the recess, I spent a lot of time talking to a wide cross-section of people. I was dismayed at the degree of disenchantment among intelligent people with how political institutions in Britain were mishandling the situation. The situation is grave. In my long life in politics, I do not remember a time when there was such widespread disenchantment, including with the ability of the most privileged sections of our community and how they think about these issues. It is grave because, out there, extremism is real. The memories of the 1930s should be dominant in our preoccupations. We must not play into the hands of extremists. We have a huge responsibility at this juncture. There has also been a failure to put in a wider political context the possibility of another referendum—a failure of real political debate and a failure to engage the widest possible cross-section of the community.
One issue about which I have always been concerned is migration. It is disastrous that, in Britain, the issue has become almost totally one of immigration. Immigration is just one consequence, or one part, of the much wider global issue of migration. Where in the debate about our relationship with Europe has been the real concern about the part we should play in devising worldwide migration policies? Without this, we shall always be talking about sticking fingers in the dam or coping with a particular influx.
We have not really debated in this context the relevance of all this to the world economy, on which Britain is utterly dependent. What are our policies on the world economy or on trading systems? There is a great deal of preoccupation in Britain with social injustice, but the concern is not just about poverty and wealth differentials in Britain. A lot of people are deeply concerned about the global dimensions to all this. Where has that debate been? We are preoccupied—at times almost neurotically—with environmental issues, the latest being the very real issue of pollution and the damage it is doing to our children’s health. Where has been the debate about that?
A further referendum might be a fallback position, but I am concerned that it could mean we forgo the chance for a real, widespread public debate about how the European Union as an institution is relevant to the issues that confront us, nationally and internationally, in all these dimensions, and what our position should be in response. I believe that the best way of having that debate is in the context of a general election.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will focus my comments on three issues: the impact of this agreement on the Yorkshire region, the effect on local government, and UK citizens living in the EU.
Yorkshire has a population of over 5 million. Its businesses include a substantial manufacturing base, a fishing industry on the east coast, farming in North Yorkshire, a strong financial sector in Leeds, renowned universities with significant interests in EU-funded research projects and a fine cultural sector. Each of these businesses anticipates a negative impact from Brexit with a deal and some a disastrous impact with no deal.
The West Yorkshire Combined Authority has reported its concerns for the future replacement funding of the current €396 million that supports regional economic growth. This fund has enabled the installation of a superfast fibre-optic broadband network across more than 500 different postcode areas to boost business. That EU funding provides a very large resource that may no longer be available, and it will hit the prosperity of a region whose household income is already below the national average. For many Members of this House, losing a few quid here and there will make no difference. For people where I live, losing a few quid here and there makes the difference between existing and just surviving.
Individual local authorities are also trying to mitigate the significant risks that leaving the EU will bring. Kirklees Council, on which I sit, has evaluated those risks. These include the prospect that the economic downturn will significantly affect business investment and survival, and hence business rates income to fund council services. The assessment is that housebuilding will decline again, failing people who desperately need a home. Then there is the inability of employers in health and social care to fill vacancies and provide care because EU citizens, on which the care sector depends, are returning to their home countries. All these, and more, will result in even more pressure on council services that are already stretched to breaking point.
In addition, there are two particular areas of concern. The first is for the waste disposal side of the council’s statutory functions. Currently, waste can, and is, shipped to EU countries—for example, for the recycling of plastics. Waste approvals post-March 2019 will not be valid, and plastics and other waste materials will no longer be able to be sent to EU countries. There is a big question mark over what happens to this waste material when government inaction means that our own plastic recycling sector may be unable to cope.
Secondly, as this House is aware, there has been a rise in all forms of hate crime since the referendum in 2016; this has not abated. Community cohesion is, and will be, challenging for those of us who strive to see all people treated equally and with dignity. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, this is indeed a moral issue.
Individual lives are being, and will be, profoundly affected by the decisions that we are making. Many Members of your Lordships’ House will have family members who have taken advantage of the freedom of movement to live and work in the EU. I want to end with the reflections of young people from the UK who are part of the vibrant, new classical music scene in Germany. This is what they say:
“I am living with immense uncertainty, not knowing how my circumstances are going to change. It is very stressful.”
“Will I be able to continue working Europe-wide? Currently, I’m able to move freely and easily between different European countries for work.”
“What will this mean for my colleagues working in the music field? Are we going to have to get a visa every time we have a concert in another European country?”
Finally:
“Even though I and many hundreds of thousands of others have chosen to live in another EU country, we are still British citizens. We exercised our right to freely move, live, study and work in a new country. Brexit is putting our new lives in jeopardy.”
These young people and thousands of others are not outside Parliament shouting the odds, but their voices must be heard too.
We are in danger, as a country, of listening only to the most outspoken, the most bellicose, the most threatening. Parliament has a duty to hear and respond also to the voices of those who have taken advantage of the freedoms the EU has enabled. The decision we make will profoundly affect individual lives, including the future for our children and grandchildren. The greatness of our country lies in an outward-looking, co-operative pragmatism. We are in grave danger of creating a lesser country, one that is insular and introspective. I cannot and will not support that direction of travel. People in 2016 did not vote to harm their neighbours. They did not vote for a mean-minded country. People have a right to review the decision. Parliament must give them that opportunity in a people’s vote.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, when last we attempted this debate, it seemed to me that there was an elephant in the Chamber. We had the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, but missing at the time was the White Paper on immigration. I said then that to those sectors of the economy dependent for success on the movement of people and services across borders, this document was every bit as significant as the two on the Order Paper. I still believe that to be true so I make no apology for focusing today on the ways in which this recently arrived White Paper adds to our understanding of a future outside the EU.
Like the political declaration, this White Paper has its own elements TBC, but at least it provides some clarity of intention. It confirms, as anticipated, that the current dual-entry system will be replaced with a single route for all countries. So far, so logical, except that this route will give access only to the skilled and highly skilled, with no parallel flow of low and medium-skilled workers coming, as now, from the EU. With virtual full employment in the UK, many business sectors rely on this supply chain, not least to fill vital but lower-paid roles in health and social care. We know from forecasts commissioned by this Government that a further 725,000 medium and low-skilled roles open up every year, a figure roughly in line with the number of young people annually who turn 18. Is the intention for every one of these young people to occupy these low and medium-skilled roles? If so, so much for the ambitions of the Government’s 2017 strategy to increase social mobility through education.
To address this challenge in the short term, the White Paper proposes a transitional measure: a route that will see employers reliant on a rotating pool of low-paid workers on 12 month visas—workers with no right to settle and no job security. This will mean loss of know-how, discontinuity of service, constant recruitment and retraining and dips in standards, risks so clearly outlined by my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton earlier. Some of these workers will be responsible for the most vulnerable in our society; they will be care workers, teaching assistants and nurses.
The White Paper also confirms the intention to measure a person’s potential contribution by how much they earn. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for giving airtime to my mantra on this. All together now, once again:
“Salary levels are not a proxy for skills”.—[Official Report, 5/12/18; col. 1074.]
We are promised a future in which only the brightest and the best are welcome, but in the sector I know best, culture and the creative industries, importing only established stars is not the way to ensure a thriving domestic sector. A vibrant sector depends on talent pipelines built by spotting and nurturing potential, by welcoming the entrepreneurs and the stars of the future—young people earning far less than £30,000.
However, by far the most dispiriting message in the White Paper can be found at paragraph 6.41, where the decision not to open a dedicated route for unskilled labour is described as being,
“consistent with the public’s view … that lower skilled migrant labour may have depressed wages or stifled innovation in our economy”.
That may or may not be the public’s view, but the MAC’s report repeatedly makes clear that it is far from true. At paragraph 7, it says that,
“migrants have no or little impact on the overall employment and unemployment outcomes of the UK-born workforce”.
At paragraph 8 it says that,
“migration is not a major determinate of the wages of UK-born workers”.
On page 62 it says that,
“not only may migrants directly contribute to the levels of innovation they may also enable UK workers to become more innovative, by bringing with them complementary skills and ideas”.
It is deeply disturbing to see this important paper base its policies not on evidence but on perception. Perhaps it is not surprising, given the unswerving determination we have seen from the outset to end freedom of movement on the basis that it is the will of the people. Which people? The Migration Advisory Committee itself notes:
“The UK may find itself in the position of ending free movement just as public concern falls about the migration flows that result from it”.
On Monday, an Ipsos MORI poll backed this up: concerns about immigration are the lowest they have been for 16 years.
It is certainly not the will of the younger generation, for whom freedom of movement is a primary concern. This is not in the sense in which the White Paper refers to it, but in terms of the opportunities and rights that it brings in the areas of human and civil rights, cross-border families, travel, work, education, and trade.
The Ipsos MORI poll lists—in order—the issues of greatest public concern today. After Brexit, they are: the NHS, poverty, crime, housing, the economy and education. Leaving the EU will not solve any of these. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, pointed out in December, the Brexit vote was a response to problems for which Brexit is not the solution. It will impact disproportionately on those areas that voted leave and it ties up valuable government time that could be focused on those issues. I cannot agree with those noble Lords who see this as a reason just to “get on with it”. We may all be weary, but we have a responsibility to the next generation, whose voices and views are too often absent from this debate. It is their future we are debating, not ours.
I understand concerns that failing to deliver on the 2016 vote might be seen to betray democracy, but the betrayal happened three years ago in a referendum based on corrupt practices and fantastical pledges, made by people with no right to make them and no obligation to deliver. We are now in danger of committing a far greater betrayal, either by signing up to a deal which everyone agrees will leave us worse off, or by exiting the EU without a deal in place.
It is hard not to conclude that pushing the vote down the road—alongside the visible ramping up of no deal preparations—is part of a strategy to ensure that the deal passes in the other place. If the strategy fails, as it seems it will, the ticking clock may leave us only two options. We can apply to extend Article 50 so that the public can choose between what is on offer and what we already enjoy. Or we can revoke Article 50 and get on with addressing the issues of inequality, poverty, health and social care that are the everyday reality for communities up and down the country.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, there are two harsh truths about this debate. First, there is little one can say about Brexit which has not been said before. Secondly, nothing any of us can say is likely to change the minds of people who think differently.
I have not changed my mind since I last spoke in December, but I do have a new perspective after spending two weeks in continental Europe in the company of the French and Germans. As I heard at first hand, both the French and Germans live in deeply troubled countries, politically and economically. The latest official figures, which came out just last week, show a sharp drop in industrial production in both countries. It is not surprising that they see Brexit as a hammer-blow to their interests. What is more, deep down, each fears to be left alone with the other in a European Union without the United Kingdom.
In our Brexit debates, we can be dangerously anglocentric, ignoring at our peril how things are seen from the other side of the channel. For instance, by the end of the year, there will be a new president of the European Council, a new president of a new Commission, a new president of the European Central Bank and a newly elected European Parliament, where the so-called populists are expected to be heavily represented. We will be negotiating our future relationship with a whole new cast of characters. There will be risks and opportunities.
As some of us British indulge in a shameful competition to come up with the most apocalyptic vision of Brexit, there are many on the other side of the channel and the Irish Sea who also have anxiety, some of it worse. It may seem old-fashioned and ripe for satire, but what Britain could do with right now is a large dose of the old wartime spirit: “Keep calm and carry on”. If the Prime Minister’s deal is voted down, there is no cause for panic or hysteria. It is certainly no cause for parliamentarians to throw their hands in the air, deny their responsibilities and tell the public that they got it wrong the first time and should please try again. Brexit is not a game of pass the parcel, however difficult the decisions to be taken.
As for no deal—a dishonest piece of deceptive shorthand, if ever there was one—it is ludicrous to run screaming from the room at the very notion. We should instead analyse the many different types of a so-called no deal, if push comes to shove and we leave the EU without an agreement on 29 March. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out,
“WTO is a safe haven, not a hard option”,
and we will possibly,
“cash in, not crash out”.
I was horrified to read a recent tweet by one of our Members, who claimed that Brexit would leave us worse off, permanently. Does anybody have any idea what “permanently” means? Look at Galbraith, a well-known economist, who said:
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”.
Any student of economics knows perfectly well that there are too many variables in human behaviour to predict the future.
I have already quoted one American and I will quote another. President Franklin Roosevelt said that,
“the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”.
That is as true today as it was then. It is about time that we set an example to the nation and throw off negative, defeatist and abusive attitudes. I object when other people call us narrow-minded. We are allowed to have our own opinion. The whole point about this debate is that everybody should have their own opinion and we should be courteous to each other.
Brexit was never going to be easy—people who voted to get out knew that it was never going to be easy. After 60 years of membership, how could it be easy? But we know that people and business will adapt. When we became a member of the European Union, we also had to adapt. I believe that this country can do it. I am sorry to say it, but I would like us to be more positive and to stop the ongoing negativity. I find it very depressing.
Lord Brennan (Lab)
My Lords, present circumstances present a major challenge to Parliament. A month down the line, we have a Government determined to delay, taking up one month of the four left to 29 March—to do what? To start again now. They are resolute for repetition—
“No deal is better than a bad deal”—
as if the repetition proves the assertion.
When the crunch comes about no deal, there is obvious incompetence in the choice of a company like Seaborne Freight. The public outside Parliament must be deeply concerned as to what on earth is going on. The world outside, as I glean from my frequent travelling, is shocked that this country could find itself in this state of affairs. This challenge now has to be met by Parliament.
The ex-Cabinet Minister, Nicky Morgan, said at the beginning of the week that Parliament has been denied a say on the way forward for too long and that it is time for it to assert itself. The Commons has done so. The Finance Bill amendment requires a no-deal scenario to be brought back for a decision by Parliament; and the Government defeat yesterday means that if the vote is lost by the Government next Tuesday, they have to come back with a next-steps programme within three days. That is action, and it speaks of a desire by Parliament to become the deciding voice: not acting as a Government, but acting as the representative spokespeople in the Commons of the electorate who brought us here, and who are here by appointment.
Process in Parliament for the next few months is vital. We have to show that the country can competently progress this matter. There are specialist committees of both Houses. We have no break coming up, except for a weekend, it transpires after yesterday. We have just short of four months in which to use our committees and those in the Commons, and to have debates in the Chamber of both Houses that are designed to inform the world outside and ourselves as to what we are about, with much more competence and detail than broad debates permit.
Here are some suggestions about what to discuss. The first is the consequences of no deal—not from the point of view of cloistered economists or national institutions, but of the people involved. The most reverend Primate yesterday spoke to experts in Kent. They have used past, actual experience as evidence of what might happen in the future in order to show that no deal will be a real and material risk to Kent and the country. That is a topic we should be on top of and that the country should understand.
The next issue is trading with the WTO regime. As I told the House last time, I have been involved in trade negotiations between countries, not with the WTO. I remind the House that the Doha round to create the WTO after GATT stopped after six failed years in the early 2000s, because nobody could agree on how to shape it for the future. What of the logjams of the European Union and the United States refusing to change their systems of agricultural subsidies? We talk about going in on WTO terms, as if you sign a document, press a button and everything starts moving. Every country in the WTO has its own interests to serve.
If there is a dispute, it is supposed to go to a judicial panel for resolution, but at the moment it is not functioning. Why not? Because the United States refused to support the necessary appointments to the judicial panel. Therefore, we would be joining the WTO with no working internal system to resolve problems. This morning, Greg Clark, the Business Minister, stated that business, commerce and industry in this country regard WTO as a “dire prospect”, based on rudimentary systems that do not reflect modern commerce and trade. That was a Government Minister. Are we ready for this? Are we ourselves educated enough? Do the people outside with whom we are going to negotiate think we are serious?
Finally, there is the extension, if necessary, of Article 50, which can surely be obtained if the objective is to allow Parliament more time to make a more considered decision and, if necessary, to put forward a new proposal. What does all this mean? It means that Parliament is now required to provide leadership. It must inform the public, impress the world outside that we know what we are about and achieve an exit from Europe—in whatever way we do it—that is reasoned, transitional and balanced, and in accord with our traditions of being a serious trading nation, fit to do trade with once we are out of Europe.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, it has been my view, repeated perhaps too often in speech after speech in this House, that once the Government declared that they would not stay in the customs union and the single market, we were heading for no deal. Whatever ingenious schemes might be devised by top Brexit department civil servants, the Irish border question would remain insoluble—and it still is. The May deal is probably as near as any scheme can get to a solution, but still does not solve the problem in practice and seems certain to be defeated. Also, the Commission is right that no further negotiations can now solve it. There is no time. The Article 50 timetable can be extended, but not for further negotiations—Labour, please note.
In fact, probably the best and most certain way to avoid the disaster of a no-deal Brexit and, indeed, to obtain an extension of Article 50, is a new people’s vote. That a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster could not have been more clearly demonstrated than by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Kerr, yesterday, and many others, including the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, today. But, I am told, a people’s vote does not currently command a majority in the Commons. Why? It is said to be undemocratic, because it would overturn the 2016 vote. Really? When did it become anti-democratic to reverse a vote if circumstances change? One of the few sensible things David Davis has said in recent times is that to deny a change of opinion is to deny democracy. Only dictatorships do not allow people to change their minds. In addition, where is the evidence that 52% of voters did not care if Brexit meant the devastation of integrated supply chains and the consequent devastating impact on jobs in manufacturing in Britain? A very large eve-of-poll survey in 2016—I believe the only poll of the reasons why people voted as they did—found that almost all leavers believed that Brexit would have no downside but would promise a future in the sunny uplands.
It is said that a new vote would be divisive, as if we are not a divided nation now, and that it might lead to violence. Since when has the threat of violence become a reason for abandoning policy? Are hooligans, like those outside Parliament a few days ago, to dictate what we may vote for? That really would be the end of democracy.
I cannot understand why so many Conservatives no longer seem to care about our standing and influence in the world. Many people abroad long admired our record for political stability, common sense and skilled diplomacy. Now that reputation is lost. We are regarded with a mixture of astonishment and pity.
The world today faces grave dangers to democracy: an aggressive Russia; a nationalist, more isolationist United States, poised to abandon its leadership of democracy in the world; China, an increasingly powerful world force; and rising populism and nationalism in Europe, encouraged by Brexit. At a time when Europe’s influence as a centre of democracy and stability has never been more important, Britain, which could play a vital role, is about to weaken Europe’s and destroy its own influence.
Nor do I understand Labour’s leaders, who claim they will listen to their membership, yet refuse the overwhelming view of Labour members and voters, who support a people’s vote and indeed remain. If Labour supported a new vote we would get one. Perhaps I am an incurable optimist, but I believe that Parliament and the Labour Party will in the end come round to accepting that, since MPs cannot agree, there must be a new people’s vote. As opinion polls now indicate, the disaster of Brexit can be avoided.
I end by reference to the speech made by my old friend and colleague, my noble friend Lords Rodgers of Quarry Bank. He and I became friends when we were students at Oxford together. We became Members of Parliament within a few weeks of each other. I am the older; I am much older than he is, by at least 10 days. I think we are also the only surviving Members in Parliament of the glorious 69 Labour MPs who voted against a three-line whip in 1972 and secured our entry into Europe. I fought a by-election on the issue and won it by saying country first, constituency second and party third. Is it too much to hope that Conservative Members of Parliament and of this place will, when it comes to the crunch, put the interests of the nation first and not the interests of the party?
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, in this high-calibre and important debate, I have heard most of the speeches and listened with great care and interest. I missed a few speeches but, so far, I have heard little on the views, needs and hopes of business, though there has been more today. With respect, without business and trade we have nothing. They provide employment, taxes, national insurance and, by extension, health, social security, education, defence and pretty much everything.
Business is critical, and I say this on a day when Prime Minister Abe arrives in London. I remember vividly how, when I was Lord Mayor in 2016, shortly after the referendum, I was visited in Mansion House by the then Japanese ambassador. He was the representative of a friendly country and a large and welcome investor in this country, a good employer and provider of, I think at the time, more than 120,000 valuable jobs. He was stunned at the outcome. Much of the investment assumed easy access to the EU.
I am sure that we all agree that the views of business, and not least those of our international investors and partners, are tremendously important, so I want to broaden the lens to try to capture a view from a business I know well—maritime. Many noble Lords, including our Convenor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, have noted the unhappy predicament in which we find ourselves. In a debate of the highest standards such as this, with views being well articulated, we can confound ourselves with all the considerations. I want to try to inject a positive and more optimistic note.
Here I declare my interests as recorded in the register as chairman of Maritime London and as a council member and former chairman of Maritime UK, which works with the Government to promote the sector both nationally and internationally.
Maritime is one of the UK’s biggest industries. The latest data commissioned by Maritime UK from the leading economic consultancy CEBR at the end of 2017 estimated that the sector directly supported just over £40 billion in business turnover, £14.5 billion in GVA and nearly 186,000 UK employees in 2015. The substantial direct economic contribution of the maritime sector exceeds that of other comparable industries such as aerospace by some margin. Average productivity in the maritime sector exceeds the national average, and this is also true of each subsector of the industry.
This is an important and efficient sector, but it is more than those figures and statistics. We are an island nation, and we must always remember that 95% of our exports and imports are effected by sea. Our highly efficient ports are at the centre of this, investing more than £600 million of their own funds annually to maintain and enhance their efficient and rapid service. They are looking to increase that if they get certainty in the business outlook.
For the first time in decades, the importance of this nation remaining a great trading nation comes to the fore. The maritime industries are the enabler and the facilitator. The British Government have estimated that by 2030 the blue or ocean economy, comprising the wider maritime industries including aquaculture, undersea mapping, subsea mining and so on, will exceed $3 trillion a year. This is a time of great opportunity for the UK. We are fortunate that the UK remains perhaps the world’s leading maritime centre, blessed by close co-operation with government. However, we are under intense pressure from competitor maritime centres around the world—the Far East, Scandinavia and the Gulf to name a few.
As we leave the EU, the maritime sector is key to positioning the UK as an outward-looking and global trading nation. There is a great potential for substantial growth in the industry, playing a major part in growing our nation’s exports, driving innovation and, importantly, bringing growth and opportunity to our disadvantaged coastal areas.
That is why this sector also cannot support a hard Brexit. We have had far too much uncertainty for the past three years. It has already been said repeatedly in the House that a hard Brexit where Britain crashes out is surely not the way the United Kingdom, a world leader in many things, not least the rules-based international order, should conduct itself. This is not theoretical gameplay. Let us be clear: the EU will remain our most important market, so surely this is not the way to build a solid future relationship with our neighbours.
For these reasons, and accepting that this is not a perfect deal, the maritime sector supports the proposed agreement. In this, we share the views of the vast majority of business organisations. We are living in rapidly moving times and I am sure that the days ahead will throw up many developments. We are hearing a good number of calls in the debate for a people’s vote. As a remainer myself, I see the attraction in that, but there is a significant risk that a vote to remain would be a gift to populists and populism. Any move in that direction therefore has to be very clear on how it is going to be sold to the large number of people who voted to go and for whom it was a protest vote. We should remember that many of us in the Chamber today are really in the south-east bubble. In the absence of some great confidence that we can sell the people’s vote to everyone and get acceptance, we should work to take this deal across the line so that we can concentrate on future relations and give ourselves two years to prepare and to gear up in order to meet the great opportunities that we must now grasp.
This is a time for cool heads. We need to work on the next stage and use the time to gear up, refine our strategies, enhance our export promotion organisations, identify how to ensure that Britain is a still-greater place to do business and seize the opportunities. In such a case, we should approve the withdrawal agreement and accelerate work in realising this potential. There is no time to waste.
The Earl of Liverpool (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and to hear his views on the maritime industry, on which he is a great expert. I shall not, however, be following him down that particular path. As the 76th speaker in this debate, I fear that it will be impossible to avoid some repetition. I can only hope that my homework will not be downgraded too severely because of it.
The trouble with the withdrawal agreement is that neither the leavers nor the remainers like it. Even if the Prime Minister could get some meaningful concession on the backstop, it is very unlikely that it would be enough to get it over the line. On the positive side, it is encouraging to hear that she has firmly stated her opposition to the idea of a second referendum, and that she has also ruled out cancelling or postponing Article 50. We live in a very fast-moving political landscape and this, of course, could change, but whatever happens in the weeks to follow, I fervently hope that we will not go down the route of a second referendum, which would be incredibly divisive for the country, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said so persuasively in his speech earlier today. Just think what a Pandora’s box it would open for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP.
Encouragingly, there has been a gearing-up of planning for a clean Brexit on 29 March: not a cliff-edge Brexit or a crashing-out Brexit, as it is so often referred to, but a clean Brexit. Contingency planning and some bilateral agreements are being put in place to clarify the position on air travel, commercial lorries and expatriates. Although these came very late in the day, this is all good news. As a noble Lord mentioned in a speech yesterday, during an interview on Radio 4, the president and chairman of the ports of Calais and Boulogne was at pains to explain that comprehensive plans have already been put in place to ensure that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, there will be no delays in commercial traffic passing through those ports. As it seems inconceivable that we should sabotage our exports by placing cumbersome checks on our side of the channel, he was at a loss to see what the fuss was all about. If noble Lords were unable to hear that interview, I recommend it as required listening.
I agree with all noble Lords who advocate having a free trade agreement with the EU immediately post 29 March and then, after an agreed period, moving on to WTO terms. Many respected businessmen also believe this. My noble friend Lord Mancroft—who, sadly, is not in his place—mentioned them by name, but I do not think he mentioned the past Governor of the Bank of England, the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury. However, I believe this to be the right course for another reason, one which, happily, is now receiving more attention and to which other noble Lords have referred—that is, concern for the Armed Forces and the intelligence services if we sign up to this agreement.
The former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Falklands hero Major-General Julian Thompson, along with other former senior military and security figures, have warned that the Government have embedded the UK in EU defence and security structures without seeking proper parliamentary oversight or approval. They argue—convincingly in my view—that this constitutes a threat to national security, putting our UK forces and intelligence and security interests under the emerging superstructure of EU policy. In a strongly worded letter to all MPs dated 7 December, they said:
“The first duty of the state, above trade, is the security of its citizens. The withdrawal agreement abrogates this fundamental contract and would place control of aspects of our national security in foreign hands. Vote against this bad agreement”.
In a further statement, they go on to say:
“The ‘flexible partnership’ is not on offer: only subordination to the inflexible pooled law of the EU. The defence documents show that if the UK participates in EU defence it accepts 3rd country associated status”.
According to some reports that I have read, our officials have apparently been heard acknowledging in private that the Government had known that the strict EU participation criteria would apply when they agreed to authorise joining the defence and military frameworks between November 2016 and June 2017. Understanding this, my honourable friend Sam Gyimah MP resigned as a Minister. Noble Lords will remember that he was, I think, the seventh Minister of the Government to resign, calling the plan “naive” and,
“not in the British national interest”,
and saying that voting for it would,
“set ourselves up for failure”,
by surrendering,
“our voice, our vote and our veto”.
I believe he was also prompted by the EU determining that we shall have no further involvement with the Galileo satellite project, despite having one or possibly two tracking and support stations on UK Overseas Territories.
I am getting close to my six minutes so I shall be selective here. In conclusion, I thank and congratulate Mr Nicholas Shrimpton for proposing that we add another acronym to our lexicon: MANDATE. In last week’s Sunday Telegraph he said:
“We need the acronym Mandate (Managed No Deal And Timely Exit). The Government certainly has a mandate for it—the referendum, the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 and the invoking of Article 50 (all with substantial majorities). The Prime Minister has usefully established what the least bad deal would be. It is not good enough. Let’s get on with Mandate”.
I could not have put it better myself.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, there have been many failures of leadership in the political process of deciding on what terms and how to leave the EU. By far the greatest has been the lack of any serious attempt at reconciliation by the Government of those in favour of leaving and those in favour of remaining. How many times have we heard the mantra, “The people have spoken”? Yes, they have, but just over half spoke in one way and just under a half spoke in another. In those circumstances, surely it was incumbent on the Government to try to bring a divided country closer together. Surely it would have been right to spend some time listening to remainers as well as leavers and trying to shape a Brexit structure that took into account their views as well. Instead, the Prime Minister rushed into invoking Article 50 and drew red lines, having done little or nothing to promote a consensus. The views of those in her own party who wanted a hard Brexit were allowed to prevail. The Prime Minister’s attempts to reach out to the electorate to persuade them of the merits of the deal, which we are once again debating, were a consequence of desperately trying to conjure up pressure on MPs from their constituents. They were not part of a well thought-out approach to create the more informed debate that should have taken place over the last two years.
We are told that the response of many people was, “Get on with it. We’re fed up with Brexit so we will support your deal, which will bring it to an end”. But are the Government telling them the truth? This is not the end; it is only the beginning. There are months, even years, ahead before the transition period is concluded, which will be marked by yet more bitter argument and in-fighting. The people were told lies when it was claimed that leaving the EU would be easy. We now need honesty about how much more negotiation will be needed, even if Mrs May gets her withdrawal deal.
The choice that the Government are asking Parliament to make between the withdrawal agreement and no deal is dishonest too. I know that there are some people in this House and in another place—whom I will call the Brexit militant tendency—who want to crash out. However, for most of us that prospect is too awful to contemplate, not just because of the economic damage it will do, as the Treasury, the Governor of the Bank of England and the business community have made clear, but because of the threats to our security with respect to terrorism and serious cross-border crime, the huge damage it will do to our world-leading university sector, the chaos at our borders and too many other dire consequences to list in the time available. So we should not be browbeaten to support the Government’s withdrawal deal for fear that no deal might happen. Assuming that the Prime Minister’s deal is rejected, as seems likely, I hope MPs will consider no deal as a matter of urgency, reject it and end any further wasteful and needless expenditure squandered on planning for it.
The many reasons for rejecting the Government’s withdrawal deal have been set out by other speakers, and I shall not repeat them, but two issues are worth re-emphasising. First, it does not allow us to take back control; it actually means losing control. Secondly, the political declaration lacks a clear sense of direction about the Government’s end goals. It is well-meaning, but essentially a list of platitudes.
I am not a fan of plebiscites, but I now accept that if Parliament cannot agree on a way through the current deadlock, it would be right to return to the electorate. I do not accept the argument that that would be undemocratic. By the time of another vote it will be three years since the last one. In those three years, we have learned a great deal that most people did not know before about the many problems posed by leaving the European Union. So many different aspects of the nation’s economic, social and political life after more than 40 years of membership would unravel. In the light of that and with no parliamentary consensus, why is it undemocratic to give people the chance to change their view—or, for that matter, to confirm it?
I end with young people. I have raised their position once before when debating Europe in the House, and I do so again. The evidence of the pressures they are under is clear. They are the first generation to be worse off than their parents at a similar age, and are faced with housing costs they cannot meet, often in insecure jobs, with incomes that are too low for them to save and, if they are graduates, with huge debts to repay. Why on earth would we knowingly choose to jeopardise their future further? It is they who will bear the brunt of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s depressing economic scenario. They have their lives ahead of them and will be more deeply affected by what might happen than most of us. By June next year, there will be three cohorts of young people who were not old enough to vote in the 2016 referendum. A people’s vote would allow them to do so. Many young people are idealistic about being part of a wider international community in Europe and beyond. They seek common ground on issues that concern them, from climate change to the fight against poverty. They dislike narrow nationalism. That is why well over 80% of them want to remain in the European Union. We should let them have their say.
Finally, I want to ask the Minister, when he replies, to tell the House what the Government plan to do if, as expected, they lose the vote on Tuesday. The Prime Minister’s humiliating decision to pull the vote on 11 December wasted five weeks. I believe that it is the Minister’s duty, when he sums up, to indicate what options the Government are considering for the three-day window they will now have. If he merely repeats that we will leave on 29 March without a deal, which is what has been said in this House so many times before, that will be wholly irresponsible and deeply shocking.