House of Commons
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 2 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, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay a brief tribute to the Department for International Development staff and partners who were caught up in the terrorist attack in Nairobi last month. Some of them, including a British national, lost their lives that day. Despite the trauma of that event, our staff immediately joined the crisis response team, and I want to thank them, as I am sure the whole House wishes to do, for all that they did.
The Prime Minister will lead the London initiative on 28 February to unlock growth, jobs and investment in Jordan. The UK is convening an international coalition of businesses and political leaders to support Jordan’s stability and self-reliance, generating jobs for all, but, in particular, for young people, women and refugees.
Kate Green
May I associate myself with the comments that the Secretary of State made about DFID staff caught up in the attack in Nairobi?
I was pleased to hear that the Prime Minister will be leading the UK-Jordan initiative at the end of this month. The Secretary of State mentions the importance of the inclusion of refugees and Jordanian women in the labour market. Will the Government be taking steps to draw to the attention of the Jordanians the barriers women face, including those relating to transport, access to childcare and a sense of physical safety?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in this tremendously important conference, which is a real turning point for Jordan. We are absolutely looking to secure investment in that country to enable the public funds to build that infrastructure to support everyone getting to work. Unless women and refugees are included, we will fail in that task.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I declare an interest, having recently joined the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on a visit with Oxfam in Jordan? I very much welcome the London initiative. Will urgent steps be taken to take account of the fact that youth unemployment in the country is now some 38%? Not only is there a high level of female unemployment, but the participation rate of women in the workforce in Jordan is even lower than that in Saudi Arabia. Will those urgent objectives be at the heart of what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve?
Penny Mordaunt
I can reassure my hon. Friend that that will absolutely be the case. This issue has been a focus for me personally on my visits to Jordan, and I will be focusing on it at the London conference.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State realise that one thing holding back development in Jordan is the number of children and young people killed on the roads there? I spoke at a conference in Jordan recently, where we looked at this area. Jordan is one of the better countries in the middle east and north Africa on this, but we need some action to be taken to stop children and young people being killed in Jordan in this way.
Penny Mordaunt
I pay tribute to the work the hon. Gentleman has done on this issue. We often think about disease and other such killers of children, but road traffic accidents take an enormous number of lives—I believe that they are the biggest killer of individuals in developing countries. He will know that we have a new programme looking at this, and we will continue to lean in on the issue.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)
The UK leads the world in our support to the Africa-led movement to end FGM. In 2018, we announced the biggest single investment worldwide to date by any international donor: a UK aid package of a further £50 million to tackle this issue across the most affected countries in Africa.
Rachel Maclean
I am sure that I speak for all Members in expressing disappointment that the FGM Bill did not receive its Second Reading in the House last week. I am pleased to see that the Government have committed to bring the Bill back in Government time. Will my hon. Friend confirm that her door always remains open for any Member of this House who wishes to discuss what the Government are doing to stop this appalling crime?
Harriett Baldwin
I am pleased to be able to confirm that, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, wearing her gender equalities hat, has reached out to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). She hopes to sit down with him and other colleagues should they wish to discuss this important issue.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Since I got my Female Genital Mutilation Bill through Parliament in 2003, we have had only one successful prosecution. That is a disgrace and I feel embarrassed talking about the eradication of FGM in other countries, but I wish to ask about what is being done in Kurdistan. My past experience leads me to believe there is a problem with FGM there, so are we tackling it?
Harriett Baldwin
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact that FGM happens in many countries in the world. The DFID funding that I mentioned and the work that we have been doing has been focused specifically on 17 African countries. In that regard, I am pleased that 8,000 communities, representing more than 24 million people, have pledged to give up the practice.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Minister tell us why the Government have not introduced legislation—they control the House and could get it through—rather than leave it to the vagaries of a private Member’s Bill? If they are interested in it, they should do something about it.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend would lead me down paths that are best left to the Government Whips and the Ministry of Justice, but the UK does of course believe that we can work with some of the citizen-led movements in Africa to change perceptions around FGM.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister alluded to the Africa-led initiative, which has been positive, but will she not undertake to be much more emphatic in trying to co-ordinate an Africa-wide initiative to eliminate this vile practice?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that this is a worldwide effort. We focus our efforts in countries where the practice is most widespread and where there is the greatest opportunity to work with the African-led movements to really effect change on the ground.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
We have just had the first prosecution for FGM in this country; what more can this country do to prevent families from taking their girls abroad to have FGM done to them?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have done a lot in this country to change domestic legislation—for example, to put reporting requirements on parts of the NHS. One must pay tribute to the tireless campaigning by courageous activists, both here and overseas, in respect of changing the practice and changing communities on the ground.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Everyone would agree that we need to tackle female genital mutilation. The Minister will be aware that the private Member’s Bill on the issue was scuppered. In the light of that, does she understand that confidence in the Government’s willingness to deal with the issue has been shaken? It is important that they now move quickly to restore that confidence.
Harriett Baldwin
I encourage the hon. Lady to continue with that confidence. We can point to a strong track record of working on this issue, not only in the UK but with some of the African-led initiatives in African countries. She will have heard it announced during the urgent question on Monday that the Chief Whip has committed to taking forward the UK legislation as quickly as possible.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)
Yemen remains the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with nearly 80% of the population requiring humanitarian assistance. The UN is set to launch a new $4 billion appeal for 2019 later this month, at a pledging conference at which I hope to represent the UK. The UK is providing £170 million this financial year, including enough food for the equivalent of 4 million Yemenis for a month.
Ellie Reeves
More than 3 million people have been internally displaced and thousands killed in Yemen, mainly as a result of the Saudi coalition bombing campaign. Last year, the cholera outbreak affected 200,000 people. More than 22 million people are reliant on humanitarian aid and millions of children are unable to go to school. When will the Government stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia and work towards an end to the conflict?
Alistair Burt
The situation in relation to the conflict has moved on a degree with the fragile peace agreed in the Stockholm agreement. That fragile ceasefire and redeployment of forces continues, as a result of which the humanitarian situation is improving. The latest figures I have show that in January commercial and humanitarian imports via sea, over land and via container met 94% of monthly food requirements and 83% of monthly fuel requirements. The situation in Yemen was caused not by the Saudi coalition but by a Houthi-led insurgency.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Before Christmas, there was much discussion about the ceasefire around the port of Hodeidah and the prospects that it would bring for improving the humanitarian situation in Yemen. What further progress does the Minister expect to be made in helping those who have suffered for so long in Yemen?
Alistair Burt
The ports of Hodeidah and Salif are open and they are taking in more ships. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the test of whether the political agreement in Stockholm is having an impact will be measured by success on the humanitarian front. We will continue to do all we can to support the UN efforts to find peace in Yemen.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Stockholm agreement is indeed very welcome, but the Minister is right that it is also fragile. One of the features is the World Food Programme supplies, to which it is hard to get access. Will he update the House on the prospects of getting that access because the head of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has said that there is a risk that the food will simply rot and therefore not be available for consumption?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman is right. I spoke to the World Food Programme director, David Beasley, last week. The situation is that it has been difficult to get to the Red sea mills because of mining. There is a concern that some food not only has rotted, but has been stolen by illicit elements, so we have to find out what is there. The continuing progress in relation to peace will make access to those mills more likely, and we will continue to press for that.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend and his Department are doing in this tragic situation. What more can the UK do to make sure that children in particular who are suffering so much are helped more?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words. The best thing that we can do is, first, support the negotiations to ensure that the conflict comes to an end—that is the best thing. Secondly, we should keep up our support for humanitarian aid and assistance, which has been significant. In relation to the children, we should back things such as a nationwide measles and rubella vaccination campaign, which is under way and which will target 13.3 million children in Yemen between 9 and 14 February. That demonstrates how much we owe to the aid workers who are involved there and also the contribution that the UK is making.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
There is no doubt that the Minister has done a huge amount of work on this issue, but the key is the resumption of the peace talks. The parties last met on 18 December. When will they meet again? That will unlock the corridor and unlock the humanitarian needs.
Alistair Burt
The right hon. Gentleman of course knows as much about Yemen as anyone in the House. The peace talks are built on confidence, and the next round will take place when UN envoy Martin Griffiths believes that there is sufficient confidence for those talks to proceed. At present, the ceasefire, although fragile, has held. Confidence is building up between the parties, and when the time is right, we will be able to move forward to the next stage.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)
Infectious disease surveillance is vital to global health security. The UK supports global, regional and national efforts to strengthen surveillance, including through the World Health Organisation, the global fund and the global polio eradication initiative. The Department for International Development’s tackling deadly diseases in Africa programme and Public Health England are helping to strengthen regional and national surveillance capacity.
Dr Whitford
The eradication of polio in the next few years represents an incredible achievement of both vaccination and international co-operation, but the infrastructure and staffing of the global polio initiative has provided a lot of the surveillance that helped to detect epidemics such as Ebola. How does the Minister plan to replace the polio resources and ensure that both vaccination and surveillance continues?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Lady, who understands this issue very well, is right to point to the importance of the global polio eradication initiative, which has been the bedrock for disease eradication efforts. Innovative approaches have helped to provide timely and high-quality surveillance. What we need to do is ensure, through both in-country programmes and the work being done through WHO, that surveillance on polio does not slacken off because of potential eradication, and we will continue to do that.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
What potential is there for the work that the Department did last year with the Met Office, NASA and other US scientists on cholera in Yemen to be scaled up and used in other crisis situations to prevent the spread of disease?
Alistair Burt
My right hon. Friend points to a remarkable innovation that, recognising the importance of wet and damp weather for the spread of cholera, used the resources of the Met Office to ensure that accurate support was provided in areas of risk. It is a very good use of modern technology, which we intend to see replicated elsewhere.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware of some of the excellent work done by researchers in universities across the UK, including the University of St Andrews and the University of Dundee, in tackling illnesses such as AIDS, TB and malaria. Given the drop in aid to health spending recently, will he commit to ensuring a fully funded global fund?
Alistair Burt
We have been one of the leading donors to the global fund, and there is no suggestion that that should end. My father was a graduate of St Andrews and was also at Dundee, and we will be making sure that good research facilities remain key to the United Kingdom’s support efforts.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate the Labour party with the Secretary of State’s comments in respect of DFID staff in Nairobi.
We in the United Kingdom are rightly proud of our publicly run national health service, and it is thanks to our incredible NHS staff that we are able to effectively tackle the causes and symptoms of infectious diseases here. Does the Minister agree that this experience should underpin the Department’s work on health and that our overseas development work should therefore focus explicitly on supporting Governments and citizens to invest in their own universal healthcare systems?
Alistair Burt
Absolutely. Much of our work in global health is designed to support particular projects to eradicate individual diseases, but it is also crucial that we support and sustain health systems where they are. These health systems will do an incredibly valuable job in looking for the sort of illnesses and infectious diseases, such as antimicrobial resistance, that could spread around the world.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)
The primary purpose of the prosperity fund is to reduce poverty through sustainable and inclusive economic growth in middle-income countries. Other Departments are responsible for ensuring that their overseas development programmes from this fund meet the requirements of the International Development Act 2002.
Daniel Zeichner
Climate change will hit the world’s poorest people hardest, so why on earth is 29% of the energy component of the prosperity fund being spent on oil and gas extraction, including supporting fracking in China?
Harriett Baldwin
I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my commitment to doing what we can to tackle the incredibly important issue of climate change. We should be wholeheartedly supporting opportunities that work as climate change initiatives to move power beyond coal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
What a pleasure to call a west country knight, no less—Sir Gary Streeter.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I strongly support DFID Ministers’ approach to the prosperity fund, which looks to promote economic reform in middle-income countries, where 70% of the world’s poorest people live. Are not trade and economic reform still the most effective ways to lift people out of poverty?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that the way in which the world will end poverty is by having sustainable and inclusive economic growth. To achieve the sustainable development goals, we need to crowd in not just development finance, but $2.5 trillion annually for development.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Alleviating poverty should be at the core of everything that DFID does. As such, I am sure that the Secretary of State will be just as deeply concerned as I was to see the former Foreign Secretary throw his weight behind a report published this week that calls for changing the Department’s purpose from poverty reduction to furthering
“the nation’s overall strategic goals”.
Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the Department will not become a subsidiary of the Foreign Office and that the 0.7% of gross national income will be firmly committed to poverty reduction?
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
Our Departments are working together to ensure that development stays at the heart of UK trade policy. For example, we are creating a trade preference scheme that will continue to provide the same level of market access to about 70 countries as is provided through the EU’s generalised scheme of preference.
Jo Swinson
As we learned today that only six of the promised 40 trade deals will actually be in place by the end of March, it seems that the International Trade Secretary is in competition with the Transport Secretary for who can do the worst job. What assurance can this Secretary of State give to the House that we will see full impact assessments on the social, environmental and human rights impacts of any trade deals before they come into force?
Penny Mordaunt
What the hon. Lady says is not the case. We are looking at the EPAs—economic partnership agreements—and other arrangements. The numbers she gave are not accurate. Our first priority is obviously trade continuity, and after that we will then be able to introduce the UK’s trade preference scheme, which will grant duty-free, quota-free access to 48 least-developed countries, and grant generous tariff reductions to about a further 25.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Is it not an absolute disgrace that coffee producers in the developing world are, at the moment, not allowed to do the value-added bits of putting coffee into packaging, selling and marketing it, and all the rest of it? Under EU rules, that has to be done within the EU. Brexit will enable those countries now to do the value-added bits in their own countries, thereby being of huge benefit to developing countries.
Penny Mordaunt
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We want people to be able to trade their way out of poverty, and it is high time that we walked the walk as well as talked the talk.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
I am sure that the whole House will be deeply concerned to see the distressing images of the suffering of the Venezuelan people, with the UN estimating that 4 million people are suffering from malnutrition. UK aid will deliver an additional £6.5 million aid package focused on dealing with the most severe health and nutrition difficulties. We have had staff deployed in the region last year and will keep our humanitarian efforts under review. I would call on all actors to ensure that we have unhindered humanitarian access. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I understand the predictable air of anticipation in the Chamber just before Prime Minister’s questions, but I would remind the House that we are discussing the plight of some of the most vulnerable people on the face of the planet. I think some respect is in order.
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, Mr Speaker, and there are few parts of the world that see more vulnerable people than Gaza. Medical Aid for Palestinians reports that since March last year at least 250 Palestinians have been killed as part of Israel’s use of force against the Great March of Return protests. Among them were three health workers, killed by Israeli forces while trying to reach, treat and evacuate wounded demonstrators. A further 600 health workers have been injured. What are our Government doing to ensure the safety of health workers in Gaza and to hold the Israeli Government to account for these actions?
Mr Speaker
I look forward to reading the right hon. Gentleman’s treatise in the Official Report tomorrow.
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East does as he asks on a regular basis. With regard to the humanitarian work that we are doing, he will know that we have stepped up our offer—in particular, looking at providing additional medical support. We will continue to do that.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
I know that my hon. Friend will want to tell the schoolchildren of Dudley, who are supporting this campaign, of the great work that is done through UK Aid, which has ensured that some 7 million children have had access to a decent education.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Why does the Secretary of State believe that the UK’s commitment to spending 0.7% of national income on aid is unsustainable?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to remind the House that it was under a Conservative-led Government that the commitment to 0.7% was introduced, and it is a Conservative Government who have retained that commitment. What we want to do in future, though, is look at maintaining that with public funds but reducing the burden on the taxpayer.
Dan Carden
I ask that because the former Foreign Secretary has called for the Department to be closed, and the Secretary of State has said nothing. Her party colleagues have called for aid to be redefined away from poverty reduction, and she has said nothing. Is it not the sad truth that Conservative Members who are now circling the Prime Minister know that their leadership prospects are buoyed by appealing to the tiny number of Tory party members who hate aid as much as they want to bring back capital punishment? Why should anyone trust a Government who have pushed 14 million of their own citizens into poverty to stand up for the world’s poorest people?
Penny Mordaunt
They should trust me as the Secretary of State and as someone who has been an aid worker. They should trust this Government because we introduced the policy and are retaining it. The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises the comments of certain colleagues. For example, the former Foreign Secretary has not said that he wishes to abandon the 0.7%. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to talk about the global goals at the Dispatch Box. We want to deliver them, and to do so, we need additional funding of $2.5 trillion going into developing countries. That is what this Government are focused on delivering.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
Seventy of my staff are embedded in the Department for International Trade, forming a new post-Brexit trade offer, and a great deal of that effort is looking at what we can do to enable developing countries to trade their way out of poverty.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that critical issue. The Foreign Office is doing a tremendous amount and is meeting its counterparts in not only the US and Canada but in the region to see what more we can do. We stand ready to do more, and what we do will be driven by what we find on the ground. He will understand that this is sensitive, because some of our partners with whom we work in the region are very vulnerable if we identify precisely who they are and what they are doing, but I assure him and the House that we will stand by the people of Venezuela.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that the restrictive common agricultural policy has damaged agriculture in Africa. After Brexit, what can we do to stimulate trade, particularly with farmers in sub-Saharan Africa?
Harriett Baldwin
I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that there is already a lot that we can do. There are many products, such as avocados and cashew nuts, that we simply cannot grow in the UK, and I know that UK consumers and African producers will benefit from growth in those areas in years to come.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Later today, this House will have an opportunity to pay tribute to the Clerk of the House, Sir David Natzler. May I take this opportunity to add my own? Sir David has served this House for over 40 years with dedication and tireless devotion. His support and advice on parliamentary procedure and business has been invaluable, and I know that Members from all sides of the House will want to join me in thanking him for his service and wishing him the very best for the future.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Helen Whately
May I too pay tribute to the work of the Clerk of the House?
In January, the mother of a three-year-old girl was convicted of female genital mutilation. It is our first FGM conviction, but a chilling reminder that young girls are still being cut not just in Africa and around the world but here in the UK. Will my right hon. Friend make Government time to progress the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) to protect more girls from this abhorrent practice?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this abhorrent practice and to recognise the importance of the first prosecution that took place on female genital mutilation here in the UK. It is only right that we find time for this Bill, and the Government will provide time to deliver it. We have strengthened the law on FGM, leading to that first conviction, and we are helping communities around the world to end this appalling crime, but it is important that we give time to this Bill and act further to ensure that we end what is an absolutely abhorrent crime that scars young girls for the rest of their lives both physically and mentally.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I am sure the Prime Minister and the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the friends and family of the cadet who died at Sandhurst last week. I am sure the Ministry of Defence is supporting the family and fellow cadets at a difficult time, but I also hope it will be reviewing the mental health support it gives to all members of the armed forces at all times.
We also mourn the loss of Gordon Banks, and send our condolences to his friends and family and to the entire football community. He was one of the greatest goalkeepers of all time, with 73 caps for England, including playing in every single game during the victorious 1966 World cup campaign, which I remember with joy.
I too want to thank Sir David Natzler for his work as Clerk of the House and wish him well in his retirement. He has been here even longer than I have and has always been a source of advice to all Members, irrespective of their party, and I always admire his dry wit and humour while describing the proceedings of the House. I think we owe him a big debt of gratitude.
The Government’s handling of Brexit has been costly, shambolic and deliberately evasive. Nothing symbolises that more than the fiasco of Seaborne Freight—a company with no ships and no trading history. On 8 January, the Transport Secretary told the House:
“We are confident that the firm will deliver the service.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 193.]
What went wrong?
The Prime Minister
First, may I join the right hon. Gentleman in the remarks he made about the cadet at Sandhurst. He referenced the issue of mental health. This is an important issue overall, but it is obviously an important issue in our armed forces as well. I would like to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for the work that he has done in relation to mental health in the armed forces.
I would also like to send my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Gordon Banks. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am old enough to remember the 1966 World cup—
The Prime Minister
Let us be honest in this House; I think that is important.
From being part of that team to something else that I think people remember—the astonishing Pelé save in 1970—Gordon Banks was regarded as one of the world’s greatest goalkeepers. I also know that he did a lot of community work in his local area as well. I know Members from all parts of the House would like to join me in paying tribute to him.
As regards the freight capacity, the Government let three contracts: 90% of that was let to DFDS and Brittany Ferries. Those contracts remain in place, and that capacity has been obtained. Due diligence was carried out on all of these contracts. As the Secretary of State for Transport made clear in this House earlier this week, we will continue to ensure that we provide that capacity, which is important in a no-deal situation, and we will ensure the capacity is there.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Transport Secretary told the House that the decision to award the contract to Seaborne Freight had no cost to the taxpayer. This week, the National Audit Office found that £800,000 had been spent on external consultants to assess the bid. Will the Prime Minister use this opportunity to correct the record?
The Prime Minister
I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is a bit late to the party, because I was asked that question yesterday on the statement, I think from the SNP Benches. Labour following the SNP—well, whatever next? Of course, as I just said, when the contracts were all let, proper due diligence was carried out. That included third-party assessment of the companies that were bidding for the contracts. There would have been a cost attached to the process regardless of who the contracts were entered into with.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am really impressed that the Prime Minister could keep a straight face while she said that due diligence was carried out. The Transport Secretary said that
“its business and operational plans were assessed for the Department by external advisers”.—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 190.]
On the basis of that advice to his Department, he was told that Seaborne was a start-up company with no ships and that the contract was “high-risk”. Why, if he was told that it was high risk, did he proceed with the contract?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that the Government should never look at start-up companies or at opportunities for new companies. It is entirely right that the Government ensured that the majority of the contracts went to established companies, and it is entirely right that a company on which due diligence had been carried out—[Interruption.] It is no good saying it wasn’t, because it was. We will ensure that the ferry capacity is there.
What we are doing in these contracts is ensuring that we are able to deal with the situation were we to enter into no deal. The right hon. Gentleman has said in the past that he does not want any money to be spent on no-deal preparations. He has also said that he does not want us to go into a no-deal situation. That is fine, but if he does not want us to be in a no-deal situation, he is going to have to vote for the deal.
Jeremy Corbyn
To be fair to the advisers, it appears that they were instructed to restrict their due diligence to the face value of the presentation put to them by Seaborne Freight—a company that had no trading history. Looking at the directors of Seaborne, it appears that some of them would not have passed a due diligence test.
The Transport Secretary told the House:
“This procurement was done properly and in a way that conforms with Government rules.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 192.]
However, a freedom of information request reveals that the Secretary of State bypassed those rules, because the procurement assurance board—a senior panel of experts and lawyers—was denied the chance to scrutinise the deal. What action will the Prime Minister take over what appears to be a very clear breach of those rules?
The Prime Minister
The contract was awarded following commercial, technical and financial assurance at a level in line with the company’s status as a new entrant to the market, carried out not only by senior DFT officials but by third-party organisations with experience and expertise in this area, including Deloitte, Mott MacDonald, and Slaughter and May. It was designed in recognition of the risks posed: no money was paid to the contractor and no money would be paid until services were delivered. Therefore, no money has been paid to that contractor.
The right hon. Gentleman has stood here time and again and said that, actually, we should not be doing anything to prepare for no deal. It is entirely right and proper that this Government are taking the action necessary to ensure that, should we be in that no-deal situation—it is not our policy to have no deal; it is our policy to get a deal—we have the capacity we need, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Jeremy Corbyn
Could I bring the Prime Minister back to the question of Seaborne ferries? Eurotunnel has called the ferry contract procurement a “secretive and flawed” exercise. Taxpayers now face a legal bill of nearly £1 million to contest that—the money goes up and up. The Secretary of State’s decision to award the contract to Seaborne has increased the budget deficit of Thanet Council, the owners of Ramsgate port, by nearly £2 million. When questioned by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), the Transport Secretary refused to give a guarantee. Can the Prime Minister today give a cast-iron commitment to the people of Thanet and confirm that they will not be picking up the bill for the failure of this contract?
The Prime Minister
The Department for Transport and other parts of the Government are in discussion with Thanet Council about the impact of the contract. I remind the right hon. Gentleman why the Department for Transport has taken these actions in relation to ferry capacity: to ensure that in a no-deal situation we are able to guarantee that medicines, primarily, will brought into this country. We are prioritising medicines being brought into this country. Again, that was a question I seem to remember being asked on more than one occasion yesterday by SNP Members who had an interest in that. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be interested in ensuring that we can, in a no-deal situation, provide the medicines that people in this country need. That is what we are doing. That is the sensible approach of a Government who are taking this matter seriously.
Jeremy Corbyn
Maybe the Prime Minister should follow the advice of the House and take no deal off the table and negotiate seriously with the European Union. It cannot be right that a hard-pressed local council and local taxpayers are footing the bill for the incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport and this Government.
The spectacular failure of this contract is a symptom of the utter shambles of this Government and their no-deal preparations. The Transport Secretary ignored warnings about drones and airport security; he gave a £1.4 billion contract to Carillion despite warnings about their finances; he oversaw the disastrous new rail timetable last year; and rail punctuality is at a 13-year low and fares at a record high—that is some achievement. And now the Transport Secretary is in charge of a major and vital aspect of Brexit planning. How on earth can the Prime Minister say she has confidence in the Transport Secretary?
The Prime Minister
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what the Transport Secretary is delivering: the biggest rail investment programme since the Victorian era, spending nearly £48 billion on improving our railways to deliver better journeys—20% higher on average every year than under a Labour Government. That is what the Transport Secretary is delivering: commitment to transport in this country and commitment to transport across the whole of this country.
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to focus his questions in that way, rather than asking more general questions in relation to Brexit. There are still a number of issues on Brexit where we do not know his answers to the big questions. We do not know if—[Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members burying their heads in their hands. We do not know whether their leader backs a second referendum. We do not know whether their leader backs a deal. We do not even know whether he backs Brexit. He prefers ambiguity and playing politics to acting in the national interest. People used to say he was a conviction politician—not any more.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that with me. Obviously, the quality of school buildings is an important issue in our education system. That is why we are putting more money into it—we are investing £23 billion in school buildings through to 2021. He raised the specific issue of Tiverton High School, and I will make sure that a Minister from the Department for Education will be happy to meet him—and the headteacher and the council, if that is appropriate—to discuss this issue.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I congratulate so many of my colleagues on sporting yellow today as a mark of solidarity with those from Catalonia who are on trial for the political principle of supporting self-determination.
Will the Prime Minister rule out bringing the meaningful vote to this House less than two weeks before 29 March?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman was present yesterday when I made my statement to the House and he heard the process that we will be following. Of course, a debate is taking place tomorrow, and then, as we have made clear, if a meaningful vote has not been brought back and passed by this House, we will make a statement on 26 February and have a debate on an amendable motion on the 27th.
Ian Blackford
I am afraid that that was no answer from a Prime Minister who continues to run the clock down. This is the height of arrogance from a Government set on running the clock down. Just 44 days from a no-deal scenario, the Prime Minister is hamstrung by her own party and rejected by European leaders. The Prime Minister must stop playing fast and loose. Businesses are begging for certainty; the economy is already suffering. Prime Minister, you have come to the end of the road, rumbled by your own loose-lipped senior Brexit adviser. Will the Prime Minister now face down the extremists in her own party and extend article 50?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about certainty for business. He can give business certainty by voting for the deal—that is what gives business certainty. He complains about no deal, but of course, it was the Scottish National party who wanted to leave the UK without a plan—[Interruption.] Perhaps we should remind the SNP that independence would have meant leaving the EU with no deal.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am aware of the issues with Slaidburn country practice, and of course, we are aware of the pressures facing GPs. That is why there is going to be a major new investment in primary and community healthcare. This is a very important element of our national health service, and that has been set out in the long-term plan. In the event of a practice closure, NHS England assesses the need for a replacement provider before dispersing the list of patients at that GP surgery. I understand that in relation to Slaidburn health centre, discussions are ongoing on the future of the practice, and the local clinical commissioning group is currently exploring options.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the action that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is taking on social media sites and the action the Home Office is taking in conjunction with DCMS. We want social media companies to do more to ensure that they do not promote harmful content to vulnerable people. He raised the specific issue of the impact on people with eating disorders. We want to take action in a way that helps to keep people safe in looking at images, and I will ensure that a Minister from the Department meets him to discuss this issue.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, I and the Government have been very clear in our customs proposals that we want an independent trade policy—it is specifically referenced in the political declaration. We believe it is important, and I am pleased to hear what the Governor of the Bank of England has said today about the importance of free trade around the world.
On my hon. Friend’s first point, I am grateful he has asked me that question, rather than relying on what someone said to someone else, as overheard by someone else, in a bar. It is very clear that the Government’s position remains the same: the House voted to trigger article 50; that had a two-year timeline that ends on 29 March; we want to leave with a deal, and that is what we are working for.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
As I said previously to the hon. Gentleman, the Department is reviewing Network Rail’s proposals for an effective and resilient solution on the Dawlish line, and there will be an update on funding in due course. The first phase of work to protect the sea wall at Dawlish began in November, of course, as part of the £15 million of wider investment to make the railway at Dawlish and Teignmouth more resilient to extreme weather.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I recognise my hon. Friend’s comments from the doorstep, and I know that he is an assiduous Member who listens to his constituents and brings their views to this Chamber. It is important that we have made more money available to police forces, and I am pleased to say that the number of people joining police forces as officers is at its highest level for 10 years. We made more money available to police forces—£970 million over the next year—although it is a sadness in this Chamber that the Labour party voted against it.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
No it is not. On Hitachi and the Wylfa site, we offered a package of support that no previous Government had been willing to consider of one third equity, all-debt financing and a strike price of no more than £75 per MWh. Ultimately, we could not at that stage reach an agreement among all the parties, and Hitachi decided on a commercial basis to suspend the project, but it has made clear that it wishes to continue discussions with the Government on bringing forward new nuclear at Wylfa, and we will support those discussions.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree that, carried out in the right way, stop-and-search is an effective tool for our police forces. We recognise the concern felt about violent crime—the hon. Gentleman has raised the specific issue of knife crime—which is why the Home Secretary published the serious violence strategy, and why we established the serious violence taskforce.
Let me reiterate that we want the police to use stop-and-search properly and lawfully. It is a vital and effective policing tool, but when they use it, we expect them to do so lawfully.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It was, of course, this Government who introduced the energy price cap. That was not done by the previous Labour Government. The cap has protected 11 million households, and energy suppliers will no longer be able to rip off customers on poor-value tariffs. It will save consumers £1 billion a year. Citizens Advice has previously said:
“the cap means people are paying a fairer price now, and will continue to pay a fairer price even if the level of the cap rises”.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend and the Education Committee for their work on this important issue. Obviously we all recognise that good discipline in schools is essential, but it is also important to ensure that any exclusion is lawful, reasonable and fair. Guidance sets out that headteachers should, as far as possible, avoid permanently excluding any pupil who is subject to an education, health and care plan, and make additional efforts to provide extra support to avoid excluding those with special educational needs. We want to ensure that schools play their part in supporting children who have been excluded, in collaboration with alternative providers and local authorities.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Timpson review. It is still ongoing, but I can assure him that when it reports in due course, we will look very seriously and very carefully at its recommendations.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, and I thank the mindfulness APPG for its work and its recent report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for adults with depression.
I am aware of the training that staff have received. A few weeks ago, a constituent came to my surgery to talk about mindfulness. A member of my parliamentary staff who was with me had undertaken that training, and was therefore able to speak about the impact that it had had.
The commissioning of psychological therapies is a matter for NHS England, but I will ensure that it is aware of the report.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is obviously a beneficiary of mindfulness himself. He seems a very calm and phlegmatic fellow these days, which was not always the case in the past.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The honours system is designed to acknowledge and celebrate great public service to our nation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when a small minority of recipients of honours, like Philip Green, bring the system of honours and business into disrepute by being found to have behaved disgracefully, letting down the vast majority of businesses who set the highest standards, then it is right for this party and this Government to be the first to stand up for decent standards and look at beginning a process for seeing whether people who behave in that way should be stripped of their honour?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend said, the honours system recognises exceptional service and achievement in a wide range of spheres of public life, and if the recipient of an honour brings that honour into disrepute it is important that steps are taken to review that honour. There is a forfeiture process for that purpose; that includes an independent forfeiture committee which gives recommendations to me for Her Majesty’s approval. That is the process, and it is important that we have that so that when anybody who has been in receipt of an honour brings that honour into disrepute steps can be taken to review that.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As president of the Wargrave girls football club, I am very willing to commend all those girls and other females who play football. Members across this House have been concerned to hear of the disparity between the winnings that the hon. Lady has raised with the House. Obviously this is a matter for the football authorities, but I am sure they will have heard the concern expressed in this House about the current position.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It takes courage and leadership to admit difficult things, because that is how we start to recognise the need for change, so I would like to thank the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for acknowledging that there has been a link between accessing universal credit and food bank usage. But it is not the case that there has been a link; there is a link. Will the Prime Minister please urgently review the five-week wait and the benefit freeze? Both must go, because the unpalatable truth is that our welfare safety net is no longer holding up those most vulnerable in society; it is tangling around their feet and dragging them under the water.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend and I have discussed universal credit and its roll-out in the past. As she will know, as we have been rolling this out slowly and carefully, we have taken a number of measures to address issues that have arisen. Shortly after I became Prime Minister we cut the taper rate so people could keep more of the money they earned. Subsequently we have of course scrapped the seven-day waiting. We have introduced the two-week overlap in relation to those in receipt of housing benefit. And of course we have also ensured that 100% of a full monthly payment is available to people at the start, for those for whom that is necessary. So we have been taking steps and will continue to look at universal credit, but universal credit is a system that encourages people into work and makes sure that work pays, compared with the legacy system from the Labour party that left 1.4 million people for nearly a decade trapped on benefits.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I recognise the value that people across the country place on having a television, and for many elderly people the connection that brings with the world. That is why the free licences for the over-75s are so important. We have been clear that we want and expect the BBC to continue free licences when it takes over responsibility for the concession in 2020. May I just say that taxpayers rightly want to see the BBC using its substantial licence fee income in an appropriate way to ensure that it delivers fully for UK audiences?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My constituent, Ben Seaman, receives employment and support allowance benefits and was awarded £20,000 after the recent court ruling on ESA underpayments. Ben has to spend a lot of this within a year in order to avoid having more than £16,000 of assets and risk losing his eligibility for ESA. Clearly this is an unintended anomaly, so will my right hon. Friend encourage the Work and Pensions Secretary, who I know is sympathetic to the situation, to resolve this as soon as possible through an exemption for Ben and for any others who are similarly affected?
The Prime Minister
This is a concerning case that my hon. Friend has raised with me. I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions is aware of it and I am assured that it is looking into the issue, and I will ensure that he receives a response as soon as possible.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman knows my view in relation to a second referendum; I have expressed it many times in this House and it has not changed. I believe it is important that we deliver on the first referendum, but my colleagues and I are meeting Members from across the House to discuss the issues that they wish to raise in relation to the Brexit matter, and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sedgefield can meet, if not with me then with an appropriate Minister.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
With the return of the Royal Air Force Tornadoes from operations for the last time, will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute not only to this remarkable jet, which has given 40 years of operations from the cold war through to the mountains of Afghanistan, but to the remarkable men and women who have flown and maintained her?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Tornado and to the men and women who have flown and maintained the fleet over the last 40 years. He has referenced the cold war and the mountains of Afghanistan. From the Gulf war through to operations against Daesh in Syria and Iraq, the Tornado has also been an integral and vital part of RAF operations. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said last week, it is with a heavy heart but enormous pride that we bid farewell to the Tornado from operations after it has played that vital role in keeping Britain and the allies safe. It will of course be replaced with worthy successors in the improved Typhoon and the new F-35s, which will keep us as a world leader in air combat, but I am happy to pay tribute from the Dispatch Box to the plane and to all those men and women who have flown and maintained it over those 40 years.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The UK’s democracy is defunct. Its economy and society are chronically unequal. Britain is breaking. Let us speak as others find us. This plain truth has not gone unnoticed. In pubs, clubs and homes, on pavements, at schools and workplaces, and at a Yes Is More gig in Cardiff on Friday, people are talking about this place and about how Westminster is failing them. When will the Prime Minister lift her gaze above party interests and the Westminster interest? When will she work with others to remake this island as three self-sufficient, thriving nations, rather than perpetuating the assumption of privilege for one?
The Prime Minister
When I became Prime Minister, I was very clear that I wanted a country that worked for everyone, and that was the entire United Kingdom. I note that in her question the hon. Lady failed to recognise that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. We want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. I also say to her that democracy is not defunct. Democracy in this country will be shown by this House recognising the vote that took place in 2016, delivering on the result of the referendum and voting for a deal for us to leave the EU.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Despite our comparative size, the UK has more Government Departments than even the USA. We hear in this place all the time about the challenges of cross-departmental working. Will my right hon. Friend commit to looking carefully in the spending review at opportunities to shrink the size of government and instead focus our spending on public services?
The Prime Minister
The question of the size of government is something that several colleagues raise from time to time. I must put my hand up and admit the role that I played in that by creating the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for International Trade, and of course we are also employing more civil servants to ensure that we deliver on Brexit, something which I believe is close to my hon. Friend’s heart.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Maryam is just six months old, and she is beautiful. She was recently diagnosed with a devastating form of muscular dystrophy. Her brother had the same condition and died tragically young. Spinraza is a new and highly effective drug produced by Biogen that is available in 23 countries, but not in England. If Maryam lived in the west of Scotland instead of West Ham, she would get it. Negotiations between the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Biogen have been unsuccessful, leaving Maryam and two other babies as tiny pawns in an argument about price and profit. Will the Prime Minister please intervene and help prevent Maryam and others from suffering an early and painful death?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises that case with great passion, and I will ensure that a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care looks at the matter and responds to her.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The consumption of dog and cat meat goes against our British values. They are our companions. They are not food. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a ban on consumption here, where, astoundingly, it is still legal, would put us in a leading position and send a clear message to the rest of the world that the sickening and horrific suffering that the animals experience during slaughter should be stopped? If so, will she commit to the change, which has cross-party support, as demonstrated by my amendment to the Agriculture Bill?
The Prime Minister
I am aware of my hon. Friend’s amendment, and I thank him for raising the issue. Animal welfare is a priority for this Government. I am pleased that it is illegal to sell dog and cat meat in the UK. No abattoirs are licensed to slaughter dogs and, thankfully, there is no evidence of human consumption of dog or cat meat in the UK. I certainly hope that other countries will join the UK in upholding the highest standards of animal welfare.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. In wishing the hon. Lady a very happy birthday and hoping that the House will join me in doing so, I call Rachel Reeves.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—21 again.
My constituent Harriet recently gave birth to her baby three months premature. When Harriet was due to return to work, her baby had only recently come out of hospital, and she had to choose between taking additional time off work but struggling to pay the bills or returning to work but missing crucial bonding time with her baby. The Government had committed to reviewing the issue by the end of January, but we are now halfway through February. Will the Prime Minister commit to taking action and to extending parental leave for the parents of children who end up in neonatal wards?
The Prime Minister
First, happy birthday to the hon. Lady. We are reviewing the situation, and we are also looking at what applies in other circumstances, such as miscarriage. I will ensure that she receives a written response.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition has shown today that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. He chose to ask about Seaborne Freight and Ramsgate port, which is in my constituency, but he does not speak for South Thanet; I do. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the people of Thanet are ready and prepared to keep the port open for Brexit eventualities? Can she give a commitment to Thanet District Council that it will be indemnified for costs here on in?
The Prime Minister
No one can doubt the passion and vigour with which my hon. Friend speaks up for the people of his South Thanet constituency. He mentions Ramsgate port, and I am aware of the discussions between the council and the Department for Transport, and I believe that they are continuing. Obviously, I recognise the significance of the possibility of ensuring that suitable capacity is available at Ramsgate harbour, and I will ensure that the Department for Transport looks at the specific issue that he raises.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Yes, on this occasion I will take a point of order from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) because I gather that it appertains to the session that has just concluded. I very gently say to him that I hope that this is not a cheeky ruse to be deployed on a weekly basis to secure for himself a third question, which our procedures do not allow. That would be very wrong, and I am sure he would not knowingly do anything very wrong. We will put it to the test. [Interruption.] There is a certain amount of chuntering from a sedentary position, not least from the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who suggests that she thinks that he might engage in such behaviour. I am a charitable chap, and I am prepared to give him a chance.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Heaven forbid that anyone would abuse the privilege that you afford us on such occasions.
We all recognise our responsibility for the language we use in the discourse that we have in this House. I want to be helpful to the Prime Minister because she perhaps inadvertently misled the House when she said that there was no plan for Scottish independence. Unlike the Brexit campaign, which was no more than a slogan on the side of a bus, we had—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is brandishing a document. I have a feeling it will feature in his next press release. He has made his point with force and alacrity, and it requires no reply. I hope he is satisfied with his prodigious efforts. We will leave it there.
Mr Speaker
Ah! The hon. Gentleman ought to know about good behaviour in the Chamber and elsewhere as he is a distinguished football referee.
Douglas Ross
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your comments. For clarification, given that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) held up a copy of the SNP’s White Paper, how can I put on the record the fact that it contained many errors and omissions? For example, it did not include any transition costs, it wildly overstated the predicted revenue from oil and, interestingly, many of the proposals in it related to powers that the Scottish Government and the SNP already had in Holyrood in Edinburgh.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation, as he well knows. Hitherto, I had always thought that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) was a notably cheeky chappie in the Chamber, but I realise that the role of cheeky chappie is not confined to the Scottish National party. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Moray, who has made his point and looks very delighted with his efforts. We will leave it there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar looks very happy. We do not need to hear from him further at this time. I remind him that he also has cerebral status as the Chair of a Select Committee and should behave with due decorum to reflect the very high standing he enjoys, possibly in Scotland but certainly in the House.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is something that has been troubling me for a few weeks now. When I first came here, I was told that the protocol of the Chamber is that hon. Members must never cross the line of sight between you and whoever is speaking. However, on multiple occasions this Chamber has emptied when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has stood up, to the point at which people cut off your line of sight when you are in the middle of speaking to Members. Could you advise us on how that can be corrected?
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the hon. Lady is twofold. First, it is a breach of the conventions of this House for a Member to walk past a Member who has the Floor on that side of the House. That is unseemly and discourteous behaviour, and it falls into the category that the hon. Lady is helpfully deprecating.
Secondly, I hope the hon. Lady will not take it amiss if I say that it is regrettable that her prodigious efforts on behalf of her party leader have not been witnessed by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber himself, for the simple reason that he has already exited the Chamber. However, the saving grace for the hon. Lady is that her efforts have been observed by no less a figure than the Chief Whip of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). That probably bodes well for her in the future. We will leave it there for now.
Petition
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency and the selling of personal data. This is quite an interesting issue. Under the 2002 regulations, the DVLA may provide, free of charge, information to the police and local authorities for use in connection with an offence, but it may also make it available for a fee to any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting particulars to be made available to him, and reasonable cause is not defined. This clearly appears to be an anomaly that should be rectified.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Linlithgow and Falkirk East.
Declares that the petitioners believe that it is immoral that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are allowed to sell personal data to the third parties, irrespective of whether or not the Treasury gains financially; believes that most members of the public will not be aware that this practice is permitted; further believes that the DVLA should only be permitted information to the police and local authorities for use in connection with an offence.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review the existing Data Protection legislation and that consideration be given to prohibiting the DVLA from selling personal data to third parties.
[P002420]
EU Trade Agreements: Replication
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade to make a statement on the progress he has made in replicating trade agreements between the United Kingdom and those countries with which the EU has a trade agreement.
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
As a member of the EU, the UK currently participates in about 40 free trade agreements with more than 70 countries. In 2018, the trade agreements in force constituted about 11% of our trade. They cover a wide variety of relationships, including free trade agreements, economic partnership agreements with developing nations, association agreements that cover broader economic and political cooperation, and mutual recognition agreements.
The Government’s programme for providing continuity and stability for businesses, consumers and investors in our international agreements is of the utmost importance. We are committed to ensuring that those benefits are maintained, providing for a smooth transition as we leave the EU, but the House will be well aware that the best way to provide that continuity and stability is to ensure that we have a deal with the European Union so the UK remains covered by all those agreements during the implementation period.
We have already signed a number of agreements, including with Switzerland—the largest in terms of our trade flows, representing more than 20% of the value of all our roll-over agreements. We have also signed agreements with Chile and the Faroe Islands, and an economic partnership agreement with eastern and southern Africa. The texts, explanatory memorandums and parliamentary reports for those agreements have already been laid in the Libraries of both Houses.
As we leave the EU, we have no intention of making our developing country partners worse off, as the Opposition would have us do by abandoning EPAs. It is important for the prosperity of their people that we maintain our trading relationships so they have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. We have recently reached agreements with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and we intend to sign them shortly. Just today, we reached agreement on the UK-Pacific EPA. We have also signed mutual recognition agreements with Australia and New Zealand, and will be closing two with the United States soon. A number of negotiations are at an advanced stage. All international negotiations—indeed, any negotiations—tend to go down to the wire, and I would expect nothing different from these agreements. That is the way that countries do business.
To put the economic value of the agreements in perspective, the countries covered by 20 of the smallest agreements account for less than 0.8% of the UK’s total trade. For the countries with which we may not be able to sign a full agreement by exit day, it is responsible to ensure that we have contingencies in place should we end up, unfortunately, in a no-deal scenario. That is exactly what my Department, alongside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, is doing. We will shortly be updating businesses and the House about the progress on these agreements, and will continue to inform the House as soon as further agreements are signed, in line with our established parliamentary procedures.
Barry Gardiner
Yesterday, the Department’s risk matrix for the so-called roll-over agreements was published in the media. Of the 40 agreements that the Secretary of State famously promised would be ready one second after midnight on exit day, precisely four have been signed. Nine are off track, 19 are significantly off track, four cannot be completed by March 2019 and two are not even being negotiated.
Throughout the passage of the Trade Bill, Members repeatedly said that they were concerned that it would not be possible to replicate the terms of those agreements fully, and that many countries would seek to renegotiate terms in their favour. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to write to me to set out for each country what objections or demands to concluding a new roll-over have been presented, what concessions he has offered in respect of preferential access to UK markets in order to overcome such obstacles, and what assessment he has made of the impact on trade flows with the UK of a failure to conclude a new deal.
Many in the business community feel that the Secretary of State has diverted too many of his Department’s resources to entirely new free trade agreements, and so keen has he been to grandstand with the new that he has ignored the fundamental grinding work of securing what we already have. So I ask the Secretary of State to write to set out: the number of full-time personnel engaged on securing entirely new agreements; the number engaged on securing the roll-overs; and whether he believes his Department has been adequately resourced to handle so many trade negotiations at once.
Recently, the Secretary of State suggested the unilateral liberalisation of tariffs in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Will he explain to the House how he thinks negotiations would go with the remaining roll-over countries once he had given up our key negotiating leverage by reducing all tariffs to zero? Most Members might think that by doing so we were the ones being rolled over. Will he categorically rule out such a proposal? As we speak, goods are being loaded on to vessels that will be arriving in our markets from overseas after 29 March. How does he intend to support business with these transactions, given that nobody knows what tariffs and non-tariff barriers they will face when they arrive at their destination port? Increasingly, the Department for International Trade looks as though it has inadequate resources, focused on the wrong priorities, set by incompetent Ministers.
Dr Fox
As ever, the hon. Gentleman gives us a rich menu of the things on which he is wrong. First, if we want to ensure that all our agreements are rolled over, the best way to do that is by reaching a deal with the European Union so that they will apply one minute after midnight. I voted for that continuity. Did the hon. Gentleman? Did his party? Secondly, he asks about the reasons why countries may not want to continue these things. I have had discussions with a number of Opposition politicians about this. Some countries have said that they did not like some of the human rights elements that were incorporated by the EU and they would like us to drop those in order to roll the agreements over. I am not inclined to do so, because the value we attach to human rights is an important part of who we are as a country. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in that, rather than diverting resources in my Department from roll-over agreements to future free trade agreements, I have done exactly the opposite, reducing the number working on potential future FTAs in order to give maximum resource for this. Finally, he was wrong as I did not advocate unilateral liberalisation of tariffs—that was something mentioned in a newspaper—and the Government will determine what their day one tariffs will be as a collective decision in the event of no deal.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to stress that if we were to leave on 29 March with no deal, it would have a disastrous effect for many industries, because we would suddenly lose very important trading agreements across the world that we have enjoyed for many years. I agree with him on that, but does he not accept that when we get into the transition period he is still going to face enormous difficulties and will need a very long transition period to start negotiating so many trade deals with so many important markets for our economy? Does he not accept that his principal problem is the lack of bargaining power that the UK has on its own compared with what the EU has as a bloc in carrying out bargaining arrangements? He mentions human rights and other things, but very important countries such as Japan and South Korea, and others, are going to expect better terms from the UK, at the expense of the UK, than they have had to give to the EU. He says that they will take it to the wire. He accepts that he is having tough negotiations. Would he contemplate urging on his colleagues, even at this stage, moving to some sort of customs arrangement and regulatory alignment with the rest of the EU which will rescue us from these chaotic negotiations and allow us to enjoy the benefits of trade agreements which, for the most part, were ones that previous Conservative British Governments urged upon our EU partners and took a leading role in getting put in place in the first place?
Dr Fox
As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend raises interesting points. Although there would undoubtedly be a greater risk in the case of no deal, I do not agree that this would be disastrous, because we are likely to maintain a high proportion of the continuity of these agreements. Let me just remind him that five of those 40 agreements represent 76% of the trade, by value, that falls into this category. My Department has developed a great degree of expertise and knowledge in the process of transitioning to new agreements. There are those who say, “If we end up getting a deal, much of this work that has been done will be wasted.” I completely disagree with that, as it has created a body of knowledge, experience and expertise in the Department that will stand us in good stead. As for our ability to negotiate with other countries, we remain the world’s fifth biggest economy and many countries have said to us that it would be much easier to do an agreement with the UK as a single country which would then negotiate and ratify than to have to do it with 28 countries, as they do at the moment. On Japan, we have of course made clear our position and finished our public consultation on potential membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—CPTPP—a subject on which we are likely to have a debate in this House next week. Finally, he asks whether we should not stay in a customs union. That would preclude us from having negotiations on new agreements, such as with the United States, or even with China, with which the EU has no agreement at the present time.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has just said that countries say it would be easier to do a deal with the UK. One might ask the simple question: if it was so easy, why have we not even been able to roll over more than half a dozen of the deals we currently have? The leaked documents paint a picture of unvarnished failure: with South Korea and Canada we are off track; and with Japan we have no chance of completion. These deals are not simply necessary in the event of a no-deal Brexit; they may well be required at the end of the transition period if the negotiation then is as miserable as what we have seen to date. So why does he not own up? The time to negotiate these deals has run out, and it is highly unlikely that the Prime Minister’s deal, which he supports, will be accepted by this House. This is now the evidence that he and others need to put their weight behind an extension to article 50 so that his Government and his Department at least can complete the simple task of rolling over the deals we currently have.
Dr Fox
Again, I make the point: if Opposition Members want us to get trade continuity, the best way to do so is to vote for the deal that the Prime Minister has already set out. As for future FTAs, we could not negotiate those were we to follow the hon. Gentleman’s advice and remain in a customs union.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
I have had a careful look at the passage of these agreements through this House in the first place. Every one of them was supported by my right hon. Friend but most of them have been opposed by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner): CETA—the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement—in February 2017; the EU-Japan agreement in June 2018; and the EU-Singapore agreement in September 2018. He voted against those. Does my right hon. Friend share my consternation at this urgent question, given that the hon. Gentleman never wanted us to be in these trade agreements in the first place?
Dr Fox
First, let me thank my right hon. Friend for the work he has done in my Department as part of this overall process. What stands out in this debate is the utter humbug we hear from the hon. Member for Brent North, who talks about the need to roll over agreements such as the one with Canada and asks why the Government are late in doing so. The Labour party voted against the agreement in the first place; Labour did not want us to have the agreement. So now, to come to the House asking why we are not rolling it over on time is, sadly, absolutely typical of the way he does business.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The serious matter here is that on 29 March, transition or no transition, the UK is going to be at the mercy of the sovereignty of 70 other countries in their agreeing to the trade deal roll-over. The EU seems to have been very good at these trade agreements, which include human rights. The Secretary of State wants to maintain those agreements, despite wanting to rip up trade agreements with the most important partners, namely the 27 countries in the EU trading bloc.
The importance of the 40-odd trade agreements with 70 countries is recognised by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which warns that even if EU trade agreements are rolled over, advantages will not always be met. For example, the EU-Korea agreement allows for 55% automotive content, but the UK cannot reach 55% automotive content. As the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has warned, that will put the UK at the disadvantage of not being able to fulfil the rates of the trade agreement, and we will be on the more disadvantageous World Trade Organisation terms as well. In the 40 agreements with 70 other countries, how many other instances are there of clauses such as the one on 55% content that cannot be met? People who trade and export from the UK need to know, and they need to know now, with 44 days to go.
Dr Fox
The central premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we intend to rip up our trade agreement with what he describes as our most important trading partner, the EU27. We have no intention of having a breach. We want to have a full, liberal trading arrangement with the European Union. We do not want Britain to be subjugated in a political relationship that the voters have told us to leave. When it comes to continuity, the Government have set out what we will do with the agreements. For each of them, we have set out to Parliament—this is in both Libraries—the text of the agreement, an explanatory memorandum and the political statement on where there is any change between the agreement in place and the one we are rolling over, if utter and complete replication has not been possible. We have done that already, and we shall do that with the others.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I heard the Secretary of State give the commitment on the guidance that he is going to give. My constituents who are seeking to export to countries now do not know, at the point of departure, what regime their goods will face on arrival. I note the Secretary of State’s attacks on the Opposition parties, but he may wish to recall that 117 Government MPs did not vote for the Prime Minister’s deal, many because of their ideological commitment to WTO rules. Given that we are 44 days away, when will that guidance be issued to companies in my constituency? I was one of the 40 Back-Bench MPs who supported the Prime Minister’s deal.
Dr Fox
The Government are assessing where we are with each of the agreements. Where we believe that it will not be possible fully to replicate, we will set out a technical notice in the coming days. Let me give my hon. Friend the example of Turkey, which is part of the customs union: unless we get an agreement with the European Union, we will not be able to maintain the current pattern of trade with Turkey, although we would look to see where we could mitigate any problems that came up.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The past two and a half years have been a very painful process, as the wild and optimistic promises about what could be achieved from the Brexit process have collided with reality. That includes what the Secretary of State said to the Conservative party conference in the autumn of 2017. The question I wish to put to him is simply this: why does he think that it has proved so difficult to roll over all these deals, when he told that conference that it would be a very easy thing to do and he was confident of achieving it?
Dr Fox
If we get an agreement via the withdrawal agreement with our European Union partners, that is exactly what will happen: those agreements will roll over. Let me explain to the House why: the United Kingdom will be deemed by the European Union to continue to be party to those agreements. We will get continuity, but we will not get the same continuity if we do not get an agreement with the EU. Those who continue, by their actions, to make no deal more likely will have to be responsible for the consequences.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and Somerset neighbour on achieving a deal with Switzerland so effectively. Does he share my enthusiasm that this is the beginning of an opportunity for this country to trade more freely, to be able to cut the cost of goods coming into the country and to stop acting as a protectionist racket for inefficient continental European companies?
Dr Fox
I am grateful to my parliamentary next-door neighbour for his comments. Indeed, we have a great opportunity as we leave the European Union and as we take up our independent seat at the World Trade Organisation to be champions for global liberal free trade at a time when the voices of protectionism are rising. That is important not only for the United Kingdom or, indeed, for the economic wellbeing of the trading world, but for the wellbeing of those we have managed to take out of abject poverty as a result of a liberal global trading environment.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
We have seen some delusional performances at the Dispatch Box this week, but this has to be among the worst ever. May I take the Secretary of State back to his non-answer to the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)? The Secretary of State dodged the nub of that question, which was about why anybody should give us a better deal on our own than we have as part of the European Union. He has been asked that question over and again, and he has refused to answer it. Now that we are only 44 days away, may I put the question another way? Can he name one country that he is so confident will give us a better deal than we currently have that if such a deal has not been achieved by 30 March, he will resign?
Dr Fox
I was not able even to follow all that question, never mind answer it. Countries have said to us that there are areas of policy on which they will seek an agreement with the United Kingdom that they cannot get with the European Union. Data localisation is one policy area where the attitude of a number of European countries makes it impossible to reach an agreement, and that is in fact holding up the trade in services agreement. We will take a more liberal view of that and will be able to do things as an independent nation that we cannot do as a member of the European Union.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is my understanding, and the Secretary of State has referred to this as well, that the EU has not permitted Turkey to engage in talks with the UK on continuity of trade post Brexit under the terms of its goods-only customs agreement with that country. It is the kind of arrangement that I understand we would fall into under the backstop. Will the Secretary of State please update the House on any progress in talks with Turkey to ensure smooth future trade with this important partner? Does he share my concern about limitations on our ability to negotiate freely with trade partners should we enter into a goods-only customs arrangement with the EU?
Dr Fox
There are issues with Turkey, which is in a customs union, although it is a partial customs union, so we can discuss our future relationship in areas such as agriculture and services. I refer in all humility to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who put it best. He said of a customs union that
“as an end point it is deeply unattractive. It would preclude us from making our own independent trade agreements with our five largest export markets outside the EU”.
That was then; it is not the policy today.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Secretary of State will recall that last week I asked him to provide this risk matrix to the House, but he would not. Instead, he asserted that if only I listened to his contribution in the International Trade Committee, all would be revealed. I went back and listened to it and nothing was revealed about the content of the matrix. Why would he not make this information, which has now been leaked to The Sun, available to Members of Parliament in the same way that he was happy to make it available to businesses? Is it because he does not believe that we have a role in the scrutiny of his activities? Or was it simply to save him the embarrassment of Members seeing what lack of progress there has been on the 40 trade deals he said would be signed by one minute after midnight on 30 March?
Dr Fox
It is tedious to have to give the same answer, but if the same question keeps getting asked, I will keep doing so. The way that we get continuity at one minute after midnight is to have an agreement with the European Union so that we have continuity of the agreements. A number of the agreements are very close to completion, but there is a level of confidentiality around that. At the same time, the Government clearly want to give business an indication of where we think a trade agreement may not be able to be rolled over on time. I will do that in the coming days, following an assessment of where we are at the present time, and I will make a written ministerial statement to the House as well.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Is it not necessary for us to take lessons from the fact that we have failed to land a pre-Brexit trade deal with Japan or with most of the other 70 countries with which the EU enjoys FTAs, such as that actually we would be better off being in a customs union or having some close customs arrangement with the EU, backed up by the firepower of 510 million consumers rather than 65 million?
Dr Fox
But we are leaving the EU. Were we to attempt to have a customs union relationship, which is what the Labour party says, we would have no say in that trade policy; we would actually be worse off than we are today in the European Union. The EU has made it very clear—and the European Union treaty makes it very clear—that a third country outside the EU cannot be involved in setting EU trade policy. At best, it is a fantasy, at worst, a dangerous delusion.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
On free trade agreements with Japan and South Korea, the Secretary of State for Business made it clear to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee last week that the deadline for companies exporting to Japan and South Korea is this Friday, 15 February, because shipments take six weeks to arrive. What advice would the Secretary of State give to businesses that are exporting to Japan and South Korea? If the Government get their deal through, will the free trade agreements with those countries roll over? If we do not manage to secure a deal, what happens to those shipments when they arrive at the end of March and the beginning of April?
Dr Fox
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. On Japan, the Japanese Government have said to us that if there were a deal with the European Union, they intend to roll over the Japan economic partnership agreement at that point, and the UK would continue to benefit. I have to say, though, that we have been trading with Japan for many years, but trading on World Trade Organisation terms. We have been trading under the Japan EPA for a matter of days. When it comes to British business continuity, firms are used to dealing on WTO terms, and I envisage our trade relationship with Japan to be largely effected by our potential membership of CPTPP, to which the Japanese Government have given enormous encouragement.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
But from whom were representations had to the effect that remaining in a customs union would be a disaster?
Dr Fox
It would be unparliamentary of me to use the same term as the shadow Secretary of State for some of Labour’s tests that have led it to its policy today. It is nonsensical to say that we can be both in a customs union with the European Union as a third country and still have an effect on trade. Those tests would increase the chances of the UK remaining permanently as a rule taker, which would not be advantageous to the UK.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
There has been a great deal of focus on the number of trade deals, but, as the Secretary of State has outlined, the value of the trade in each deal varies significantly. He has indicated that many of the deals will go down to the wire. How many is he anticipating will be signed before that date? More importantly, what is their value as a percentage of our current trade value for the entire third-party free trade deals?
Dr Fox
As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. On the UK’s trade, 48% of our trade is with the European Union and 52% with the rest of the world. Of the rest of the world trade, around 11% occurs under EU FTAs. Of the 40 or so agreements, five represent 76% of the 11%, and the bottom 20 represent less than 0.8% of 1%. Therefore, there is very clear advantage in getting those larger agreements across the line first, and we are making excellent progress in that regard.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
There are two groups in this House who underestimate the value of free trade agreements. The first includes those Opposition Front Benchers who did not vote for them in the first place and whose leader believes that free trade agreements benefit only multinationals at the expense of everyone else. He should try explaining that on the workshop floor of some of the small and medium-sized manufacturers in my constituency of Gloucester that export around the world. The second group are some Conservative Members who believe that leaving the EU with no deal will be no problem. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the event of no deal, the tariffs that will come into play with the EU will be devastating for farmers and manufacturers and all the rest of the 148,000 companies that export only to the EU and that the simplest way to take this risk off the table is for everybody to get behind the Government’s withdrawal agreement Bill and make sure that all these deals are rolled over without problem?
Dr Fox
It seems that the country is caught between the irrational pessimism of those who fail to be reconciled to the referendum result and believe that everything to do with Brexit will be disastrous for the UK and those who are irrationally optimistic that it would be no problem whatever to leave the European Union with no deal. The truth is that we would be better off with a deal, which is why the Government want to get that deal with the European Union across the line. I still urge Opposition Members to support it. If we do not achieve it, we will end up with the uncertainties that they have identified today.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State rails against irrational pessimism, I assume that he will tell us that the rest of the world is looking at the United Kingdom right now and saying that Brexit is a great example that it must follow.
I wish to go back to the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) raised yesterday, which is that, under our current arrangements, UK businesses will be part of one of the biggest trade deals ever negotiated between the EU and Japan, but, under the Secretary of State’s policy, UK businesses will not be part of that agreement and we will have to start again. We are told that Tokyo’s trade negotiators are under instruction to extract every advantage possible, as we would expect them to do in a tough trade negotiation. Will he promise UK businesses that their market access to Japan under any deal that he manages to negotiate will be as good as it is under the EU-Japan trade deal, which has already been negotiated?
Dr Fox
As I have already said, the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Abe have both indicated that they want a close trading relationship for our countries after we leave the EU, but the Japanese Prime Minister has been very clear that he is hugely encouraging of the UK’s accession to CPTPP, which would then become a trading bloc of almost exactly the same size as the European Union itself. As for his first point, many people are looking to the United Kingdom and saying what a great example it is of democracy that a country wants to take control of its own constitutional future.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
And we buy a lot of goods from Japan anyway, particularly cars, and I am sure that it will want us to carry on doing that. Am I not right in thinking that, during the referendum campaign, David Cameron said that, by leaving the EU, we would be leaving the customs union? He recognised that that would be essential. Although a customs union would have the advantage of allowing all these deals to be rolled over, it would be a betrayal of what the people voted for in 2016 because we would still have to pay to access the customs union and there would still be free movement of labour. Furthermore, we would simply not be allowed to do those trade deals with countries such as China, the United States of America and, indeed, some of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge from his work on the Select Committee, is quite right. If we were in a customs union, but a third country outside the European Union—I do not hear people say that we should stay in the EU and simply behave dishonourably towards the referendum—we would not be able to affect European Union trade policy and would become complete rule takers and would in fact be in a worse position than we are today. As a member of the European Union, we were able to affect policy. We have been given a clear instruction by the voters to leave the European Union, and that means leaving the customs union and the single market.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Manufacturers in Crewe and Nantwich have expressed very real concern about the lack of progress in this area. Does the Minister accept that committing to a new customs union as part of our future relationship with the EU would resolve this issue, allowing us to continue to take advantage of our current deals with all major global markets while allowing us the ability to strike our own deals for trade in services, which make up the vast majority of the UK economy?
Dr Fox
Just how would it give us greater certainty in the exercise of our own trade policy if we were a third country outside the European Union in a form of customs union that specifically prohibited us from having a say on that trade policy itself? That would diminish the ability of this Parliament to give certainty to any business in our country, rather than what the hon. Lady suggests.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the Labour party really cared about the continuity of our trade arrangements, it would stop blocking the Trade Bill in the other place?
Dr Fox
I hope that we will see the progress of the Trade Bill, which the Labour party voted against in this House. Those involved in manufacturing, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), will note that the Labour party voted against the establishment of the Trade Remedies Authority, which is how we would protect our businesses from unfair international competition.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has said in this House on a number of occasions that international student numbers will be uncapped, that the number of skilled workers who are required for the economy will be uncapped and that our public services will be able to get the people that they wish for from all over the world to work in our those services. Can the International Trade Secretary tell us how many of these roll-over agreements—or how many of the post-Brexit agreements—will be rubbished or dictated by the fact that many of our partners that want bilateral trade deals want a lessening of the UK’s hostile environment policy?
Dr Fox
The policy on students is to encourage them to come here, and many do so. For example, we are the No. 1 global destination for Chinese students—ahead of the United States. These students come here because they believe that the quality of education is high. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have no intention of limiting the number of students coming to the UK. Likewise with migration, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we look to ensure that the levels of skill required for the UK economy are available to us. In a modern, integrated economy, it makes sense that our migration policy gives priority to ensuring the skills needed for our economic growth.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I was thinking of asking the excellent leave Secretary of State how he managed to maintain such good humour and grace in a remain-dominated Parliament. However, I think what this House wants to know is whether, in the circumstances of no deal—that must be likely, given that the Government’s withdrawal agreement was defeated by the biggest margin in Commons history—his Department will be prepared on 29 March for no deal.
Dr Fox
As I have said, our priority is continuity of trade. We want to ensure that we get the roll-over of as many of those agreements—and as large a proportion—as possible. Where that is not possible for other reasons, we will seek as much mitigation as we can. I make the case again that the best way to achieve full continuity is to leave the European Union with the withdrawal agreement. As for my hon. Friend’s initial point, I take comfort from the fact that although this may be a remain-dominated Parliament, it is a leave-dominated country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentioned Switzerland and the Swiss deal in his response to the urgent question. Could he explain why members of the International Trade Committee had to look on the Swiss Government’s website to understand the detail of the trade agreement, and why members of the Committee were not briefed in advance? What will he do to improve the lack of clarity and the lack of a sense of working together across Parliament to achieve the best for trade?
Dr Fox
I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Lady continues to press the importance of this issue; it is a view that I share. We set out in our legislation that we would publish the text at the point of signature, not at the point of initialling, and that is what this House ultimately voted for. We also said that we would publish the explanatory memorandum, and that we would set out differences between the original agreement and any changes in a statement, given that the original agreement was already scrutinised by this Parliament when it was introduced as an EU agreement. The hon. Lady raises an important point, however, about future trade agreements that were not covered in the Trade Bill; and following the completion of the Government consultation, I will set out the processes by which we will ensure that both Houses of Parliament are able to get active and real-time scrutiny of the future trade agreements.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Is it not the case that, even if we roll agreements over, it is entirely possible to make further enhancements to those agreements in time as an independent trading nation?
Dr Fox
Those of us who have been involved in this process from the beginning will remember that it was initially known as transitional adoption—that is, we would adopt the EU agreement with a view to moving on to a more bespoke agreement later. That is still our aim. For example, in our discussions with the Swiss Government at signature on Monday, we talked about our ambitions to enhance that agreement once Britain has left the EU. Our aim for the moment is continuity; ambition comes later.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The UK Government would probably leave DFS with a full-price sofa. Ministers have already indicated that giving up our protected geographical indicators would be a price worth paying for trade deals, wilfully damaging Scotland’s competitiveness in world markets. What guaranteed protections will the Secretary of State’s trade deals offer Scotland’s precious food and drink sector to compensate?
Dr Fox
That is so fundamentally wrong. The Government have said nothing of the sort about geographical indicators. We regard them as having the highest importance, not least in Scotland. On that point, I congratulate Scotch whisky on reaching almost £5 billion of exports last year—exports that we are very keen to protect.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Ministers have always promised that these trade agreements will mirror the terms that these countries have with the EU and which the UK currently enjoys. Has the Secretary of State achieved this in the provisional agreements with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, and how does he propose to achieve it in respect of Turkey’s trade relationship with the EU?
Dr Fox
We have said that we aim to replicate the terms as closely as possible. There are some issues that mean that it is not entirely possible to do so. The hon. Gentleman correctly raises the issue of Turkey, which is in a particular position because of its partial customs union with the European Union. This of course means that it is difficult to conclude what we are going to do with Turkey until we know the shape of our agreement with the European Union. Again, that simply raises the issues and complications of being in a customs union, rather than being a nation that is able to determine its own independent trade policy.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The fundamental point made by both the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and the Father of the House was that the balance of power shifts when we are no longer a member of the EU. This is illustrated by the fact that one of the first agreements that the Secretary of State has achieved is with the Faroe Islands. Will he just tell the House what proportion of UK trade is with the Faroes?
Dr Fox
I will admit that the agreement with the Faroe Islands is a small one, but it is very important for people who work in the fish processing industry in this country because it provides the necessary continuity. Labour Members mock it, but they might want to go to places such as Grimsby and tell people there that the agreement has no value, when it clearly does. Countries that are much smaller than the United Kingdom have been able to get trade agreements. For example, Canada—a smaller economy than the United Kingdom—was able to negotiate a perfectly acceptable trade agreement with the European Union, as it has with many other places. It is the utter lack of ambition, optimism and confidence shown by the hon. Lady that I am happy was defeated by the optimism of the British people in the referendum.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has managed to reach agreement with the Faroe Islands, but not with Japan or Canada. Why has this crucial exercise proved so much harder than he said it would be?
Dr Fox
The process continues, but it is worth pointing out that we have reached agreement with Switzerland, which is by far the biggest of all the agreements under this section of our trade. The trade agreement that we have signed with Switzerland this week is, by value, more than 20% of all 40 of the EU agreements. If it is possible to do it with the biggest one, it should be possible to do it with others.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
In the unlikely event that the Prime Minister’s deal is agreed, the EU is going to write to the countries that it has agreements with and say, “Please could you agree to treat the United Kingdom as a member of the EU for the transition period?” Will the Secretary of State now admit to the House that there is no guarantee that all those third countries will agree to that request?
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State, in response to my right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and for East Ham (Stephen Timms), has indicated that the Japanese trade deal will not be replicated at the level it is at now, except that we can join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. How long does he expect us to spend negotiating in order to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Dr Fox
As I said, the Japanese Government have made it clear that in the event that we leave the European Union with the withdrawal agreement, there will be the roll-over. If we want to get continuity with that Japanese agreement, there is one way to do it, and that is to ensure that we back the Prime Minister’s deal. It is also true that the Japan EPA does not come in quickly. A lot of the tariff liberalisation, for example, comes in over a period of years—up to eight years in some cases, which is much longer than I would anticipate it would take for Britain to accede to the CPTPP.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
If the Government fail to replicate existing trade agreements, we may end up finding ourselves having to rely on trading agreements with the USA. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that he will not sacrifice NHS services or workers’ rights to a deal with President Trump?
Dr Fox
This House agreed the agreement with Canada. If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library and looks at chapters 23 and 24 and annex 2 of that agreement, he will see provisions there that make it against the law for us to water down the workers’ rights or environmental laws we have in order to reach a trade agreement. Annex 2 sets out that we retain our rights to be able to regulate our public services, including the national health service. I would have thought that he would agree with those non-regression clauses. It is therefore sad that he and his party voted against this in the House of Commons.
Northern Ireland: Restoring Devolution
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on her attempts to restore devolution in Northern Ireland one year on from the collapse of the all-party talks in February 2018.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
As the House is aware, this Government remain steadfastly committed to the Belfast agreement and its successors. I am continuing to work tirelessly towards my absolute priority of restoring fully functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland. This is a very sensitive matter that requires careful handling. I last updated the House at my Department’s oral questions on 30 January. I have no further update at this stage, but as soon as I have anything to add, I will of course come to the House at the earliest opportunity. I hope that will be soon.
Tony Lloyd
It is two years since we saw the collapse of the Stormont Executive and Assembly. It is 12 months since the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach visited Belfast in the hope of seeing restoration of the power-sharing agreements, but sadly—we all regret this—that led to failure.
Since that time, there have been many calls for the Secretary of State to show significant effort in bringing the parties together to restore power-sharing. However, it would be very hard for anyone to claim that we have seen the sustained action that could have prevented the kind of drift that has envenomed the relationship between the political parties in Northern Ireland and between the communities, or the drift that has seen the failure of political decision making that has led to the consequences in, for example, the health service. We now have a health service that is not delivering the same standards, as it ought to be. We know it needs reform. People are having their health options let down, and ultimately people will die earlier.
As for schools, headteachers have made representations to the Secretary of State and, most certainly, to me about the failure of political decisions, which has an impact on children’s education. In policing and security, we are still upwards of 1,000 police officers short of the Patten recommendations, at a time when Brexit is causing real concerns about security on the Irish border.
But probably the biggest issue, beyond Brexit, where there has been no consistent voice across the communities of Northern Ireland has been reconciliation. Anybody who believes that reconciliation was achieved 20 years ago with the Good Friday agreement is simply wrong. The Good Friday agreement built new institutions that were needed to instil the belief that political change could deliver for the people of Northern Ireland rather than simply relying on the guns and the bomb. In the absence of those institutions, we saw the bomb in Derry. In the absence of those institutions, we see the paramilitaries still with a grip on organised crime in different parts of Northern Ireland. We need to see Stormont back. We need to see the North South Ministerial Council. We need to see the operation of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. All those Good Friday institutions are vital and fundamental.
The Secretary of State is now at a crossroads and this country is at a crossroads. We need to seize this time to put a sustained effort into making sure that we see the restoration of those institutions. Alternatively, this House will have to begin to make those decisions. The Secretary of State does not want that. I do not want that. I make her this offer: the Opposition will work with her consistently to see the restoration of those institutions. If she can begin that process of delivery, we will walk with her. We will do everything we can to support her. In that context, I look forward to a further update, in due course, to this House.
Karen Bradley
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to see the restoration of the institutions that were agreed by the people of Northern Ireland, in a very brave way, in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and in subsequent agreements: St Andrews, Stormont House, Fresh Start and so on. We need to see those institutions back. There is nothing that the people of Northern Ireland deserve more than the politicians they elected locally making decisions on their behalf.
But I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on a few points. He talked about health reform. He is quite right: there is a need for reform of health, and that is why this Government put £100 million into the budget last year to ensure that work could start on reforming health services and health provision in Northern Ireland. This work needs to be done whether there is an Executive or not, and that money was put in by this Government.
The hon. Gentleman talked about policing. It is a great credit to the politicians in Northern Ireland that we have devolved policing and justice in Northern Ireland, given the difficulties, fragility and sensitivities in that area. This Government took steps to ensure that we could appoint members to the Policing Board so that there is proper governance of policing in Northern Ireland. We have also put in funding to ensure that the Chief Constable can recruit the police officers needed to deal specifically with concerns around Brexit.
The hon. Gentleman talked about reconciliation. I agree with him that reconciliation needs to continue. That is why this Government have consulted on how we progress the agreement that was reached at Stormont House in 2014 to set up new institutions to deal with the matters regarding legacy, which are of great concern to many Members of this House when they see their constituents directly affected.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. I remind him that that body has met twice in the past 12 months. This Government will continue to observe all our commitments under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the incident in Derry/Londonderry a few weeks ago. I was in the city last week, and I met people who were directly affected, including the police officers. They did incredible work that night, working towards danger when others would run, and I pay great tribute to them. But they were very clear, as have been the Police Service of Northern Ireland and many others, that nobody should attribute anything that happened that evening in Derry/Londonderry to either the absence of institutions or Brexit. The only people responsible for what happened in Derry/Londonderry that night were the terrorists, and they are the ones we need to condemn.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s reply. I think there is complete exasperation in this House—and, in fairness, in Dublin and in Washington, where, for years, the two main parties respectively worked incredibly closely together to get the agreement and to get the institutions established—that for two years now these institutions have not been working. As the shadow Secretary of State quite rightly said, sadly, outcomes are failing now in Northern Ireland. Health outcomes are falling behind. There are ambitious plans to improve health, but they need political direction. There comes a point when we are all responsible for the lives of citizens in Northern Ireland. I ask the Secretary of State, although very reluctantly, whether she has begun to consider taking powers back into this House, for what one would hope would be a brief period, to deliver public benefits. At the moment, we are stuck. We come here time and again. We know that the main party in opposition to this, Sinn Féin, is not co-operating. The lives of people in Northern Ireland are falling behind. This would be a big step, but I wonder, reluctantly, whether she is beginning to consider it.
Karen Bradley
My right hon. Friend has enormous experience of matters in Northern Ireland. He did great work in Northern Ireland as both shadow Secretary of State and Secretary of State, and continues to take a keen interest. I share his exasperation that we have not been able to find a basis on which parties can come together. My priority is finding that basis, because there is no good long-term, sustainable way that decisions can be made for the people of Northern Ireland except locally elected politicians making them.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I do not doubt how difficult the Secretary of State’s job is, but she said that restoring devolution is her top priority, yet the last round of talks was over three months ago. Surely the damaging perception, if not the reality, is that implementing Brexit against the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland and keeping her government partners, the Democratic Unionist party, is her actual priority. Why has the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference not met more regularly, given the vacuum in Northern Ireland? Twice is not enough.
Appearing before the Brexit Committee this morning, former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said that he believed Stormont would now be up and running again if it was not for Brexit. Does the Secretary of State accept his experienced analysis? What role has the strained relations between the British and Irish Governments caused by Brexit had on efforts to restore the Executive? Does she believe that her exclusive relationship with a minority party in Northern Ireland has prevented an inclusive process to restore devolution? Lastly, what progress has been made on reform of the petition of concern in the Northern Ireland Assembly—a reform that has the potential to unlock the contentious issues that arose during previous talks?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points. Although the last round of formal talks collapsed 12 months ago, I assure him that there are continued discussions with all parties to try to find a basis on which we can get people back in a room. But there is no point in my imposing a solution on the parties in Northern Ireland that they do not want to be part of, and there is no point in my demanding that people come to talks if there are no grounds to believe that they will be successful, because that would do a disservice to the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is worth making the point that the BIIGC was established under strand 3 of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and it deals exclusively with east-west matters, but of course there are regular bilateral discussions between Ministers from the Irish and UK Governments on a number of matters; they are not exclusively held through the BIIGC. We also have the British-Irish Council, which meets twice a year and which representatives of the Scottish Government attend.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the petition of concern. That needs to be decided by politicians in Northern Ireland. It is a devolved matter. It is not for Westminster to impose solutions on a devolved Administration because Westminster is not happy with the way that matters are being used in the devolved Administration. I am sure that he, as a member of the Scottish National party, would not wish to see this Parliament imposing solutions on Holyrood that we felt were right but with which he disagreed.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman alluded to the Government’s confidence and supply arrangements with the Democratic Unionist party. I gently remind him that the institutions collapsed before the confidence and supply arrangements were in place. We are all working tirelessly to see those institutions restored.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will share my dismay at the stalling of plans for the Tyrone to Cavan interconnector—a huge infrastructure project that will have a direct impact upon lives in Northern Ireland. How does she think the guidance she is able to issue under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 can be used to resolve that? If it cannot, is she prepared to determine the matter herself, since we cannot continue to kick this can down the road?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend gives an important example of why we need devolved government in Northern Ireland. He alluded to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act, which allows civil servants to make certain decisions but is no replacement for having Ministers in Stormont making those decisions. That is why I am determined to find a way to bring the parties back together, and I assure him and his Select Committee that I will update the House at the earliest opportunity.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s response to the urgent question. It will be vital that decisions are taken by Ministers in some shape or form once we get Brexit over the line, because we cannot continue in the current scenario after that has happened; the decisions required will be too great. I remind the House that the reason that devolution is not up and running is not that all parties in Northern Ireland cannot agree—four out of the five parties in Northern Ireland would enter devolution tomorrow. Preconditions are being set by one party, which talks a lot about Brexit being an existential threat and yet boycotts this House, boycotts the Assembly and boycotts the Executive. We all see that as the major challenge. Health, education, police, justice and security are all far more vital than some of the preconditions being laid down by a minority party in Northern Ireland. The reality is that we need to get on with the job without preconditions, and therefore, along with all the other parties, I am up for any measures and discussions that can get that to happen.
Karen Bradley
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I hope we can find a basis on which to get the parties together, talking about and agreeing a basis for government, because he is right; the people of Northern Ireland deserve that.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I know that it may be legally difficult for my right hon. Friend to authorise payments to the victims of historical institutional abuse, but who in the future would object if she were to do so?
Karen Bradley
I think my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to recommendations from the Hart review, which are currently being consulted on as a process that would need to happen irrespective of whether there are Ministers in Stormont. We are ensuring that work is continuing that would need to be done in any event, so that when Ministers are back in Stormont, they can take the decisions necessary to see redress for those victims.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
There is nothing in the Secretary of State’s analysis with which I take issue, but the fact is that we find ourselves in the middle of a quite remarkable period of drift. Surely now is the time for us to take more proactive steps and bring in somebody from outside the political system in Northern Ireland—hopefully one who is respected in the way that Senator Mitchell was—to free up this logjam. It cannot be allowed to drift on like this.
Karen Bradley
I agree that we do not want to see anything drifting on, and I am determined to ensure that it does not. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that an independent mediator or chair may be appropriate. There is not a consensus across the parties in Northern Ireland that that would be helpful, but I am open to exploring whatever the right way to do this is, because I want to see devolution restored and Ministers in Stormont as soon as possible.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
There is a party elected to this House that does not take its seats, and yet this institution does not collapse—it continues—but when the same thing happens in Northern Ireland, we allow the institutions to collapse. To follow on from the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), should we not look at the rules regarding the institutions? Should the Secretary of State not reluctantly set a deadline again for parties in Northern Ireland to take their seats, or perhaps get a group of experienced people in this place to come up with suggestions for how the rules might be changed, so that one party does not have a veto on the running of institutions in Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley
I do not think it is any secret that sustainability of the Executive was one of the matters for discussion in the talks 12 months ago, and I am sure it will be a matter for discussion if we are able to find a way to get the parties back together. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has made proposals for a more sustainable Executive. My hon. Friend has great expertise, as former Chair of that Committee, and if he would like to make any suggestions, I am happy to take them to the parties.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I retain the title of the last direct rule Minister of Northern Ireland, and with respect to the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), I hope I can keep that title in perpetuity. In that role, I took hundreds of decisions every week on behalf of this House and the people of Northern Ireland, and now those decisions are being taken without scrutiny. Can the Secretary of State bring together all the interested parties to look at how we can inject greater local scrutiny, pending—I hope—the restoration of those institutions in due course?
Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience and knowledge of this matter. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act allows for transparency in decision making, but there is of course a constitutional issue when it comes to elected politicians scrutinising the decisions taken by unelected officials. Although I understand the desire to see more scrutiny, we must remember that when the institutions are restored—I hope sooner rather than later—those officials are going to have to return to taking direction from political masters, and having political masters who may have scrutinised their previous decisions is probably not a situation in which we want them to find themselves.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that the duty on her to set an election date for further Assembly elections will shortly become live again. Does she plan to extend that date, or will she set a date for those elections to take place?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is right that the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act sets aside the requirement on the Secretary of State to call an election. That Act expires on 26 March, and we are considering the options.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Policing Board did not function for many months, as the Secretary of State knows. She recently made political appointments from my party and other parties, including Sinn Féin. Everyone entered without preconditions, and now the Policing Board is functioning. We need to ensure that Stormont and the education and health services do likewise. We have problems. I have issues about fairness, equality and integrity, but I will not put them in front of those services functioning for the education and health of our people. If everyone does likewise, we can get Stormont up and running next week.
Karen Bradley
I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s optimism, and I hope we can deliver.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
May I ask the Secretary of State if she really appreciates the deep sense of anger—continuing anger—among the general public in Northern Ireland that Members of the Legislative Assembly continue to receive their salaries with only minor reductions? The last time I asked the Secretary of State how much it has cost the taxpayer to pay MLAs their salaries since the collapse of the Assembly two years ago, in January 2017, unfortunately the Secretary of State was not able to tell me. However, I am confident she has done her homework since then, and will be able to tell this House and the public whether £12 million has been paid in salaries to MLAs when they have not been doing their full job.
Karen Bradley
I was able to furnish the hon. Lady with the figure that she requested through a written question, but I would like to make sure that I have the most up-to-date figure before giving her further information. It would perhaps be better for me to write to her, unless such a figure should appear in front of me in the next few moments. I do understand the anger. I do hear that anger—I hear that anger every day in Northern Ireland—and I know that people want to see their politicians back doing the job they were elected to do.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is public frustration with the inertia and inconsistency, which means that on issues A, B and C, she says the Government cannot act because they are devolved, but on issues X, Y and Z, she says that even though they are devolved Westminster has to act? What we need from the Government—from the two Governments, actually—is not passive commentary, but a concerted plan to get the institutions restored. In the meantime, she should take some decisions, and if she does, she will have my support.
Karen Bradley
I am well aware of the frustration and anger that there is in the general public with the situation we have. As Secretary of State, I have ensured that we do what we need to do to ensure good governance continues in Northern Ireland, but there are of course difficulties, constitutionally, with taking new policy decisions in this place that had not previously been agreed by Ministers in Stormont. I have been very clear that the actions that I have taken—setting a budget, or public appointments, such as to the Policing Board, which was mentioned earlier—were on the basis of continuing existing policies and ensuring that public services can continue to be delivered, but without creating new policy areas or deciding on new policy areas in the absence of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman made the point at the end of his question: the answer is to get Ministers back into Stormont, and I am determined that we will do that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is the Secretary of State aware of the article published on “ConservativeHome” on 28 January by Lord Bew? He indicated that the backstop, which the Secretary of State supports, would undermine the Belfast agreement and that there is a better way out of the paralysis. Has the Secretary of State studied that article and looked at the better way out of the paralysis?
Mr Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman speaks, the noble Lord may of course be in our midst.
Karen Bradley
I have of course read the article, but the hon. Gentleman will know that there are differences of opinion, legally, on that matter. The Attorney General set out the Government’s position—his view on that matter—in this Chamber a few weeks ago.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In the absence of the Assembly, will the Secretary of State set out what progress has been made in dealing with the breach of women’s human rights in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to the Victorian law that criminalises women seeking reproductive health care?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady has done considerable work and at length on this issue. She has brought forward private Members’ Bills and other matters; I know how strongly she feels about this. She will know that the amendment was passed to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act about the law regarding abortion and same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. I have already reported to Parliament on that situation, and I continue to monitor the situation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Sinn Féin MPs attend this place and get their full wages, so will the Secretary of State at some stage look at that issue as well? There are many issues that could and should be processed because they have cross-community support—for example, in health and education. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is presently doing an inquiry on both those issues. There are indications in the press this week that more power could be devolved to the permanent secretaries of the Departments to enable them to make decisions when it comes to health and education. Has that been considered?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman made two points. First, on the pay and conditions for Members of this House, that is of course a matter for this House, not for the Government. On the decision-making power of civil servants, there is a very difficult balancing act—as I said on the question from the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson)—to ensure that we allow civil servants the political cover to make decisions without actually making them accountable for those decisions to political masters. We believe we have struck that balance in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act, but we are coming to the end of that period, and I will continue to review the best way in which that can continue to be delivered.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
What consideration has the Secretary of State given to the suggestion made by the Northern Ireland Local Government Association to look at the role and powers of local councillors as a way to address at least some of the democratic deficit that exists while the Assembly is not sitting?
Karen Bradley
Both I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have met NILGA, and it does have some very interesting ideas. However, the powers it is looking at and that it considers may be appropriate to be devolved to local authorities clearly rest with Stormont. They are Stormont’s powers, not our powers to devolve, and it would be a matter for politicians and Ministers in Stormont to make decisions about that. It is probably also worth saying that this Government continue to work with the local councils in Northern Ireland. The Chancellor has announced £350 million for a city deal for Belfast region, and we are working with Derry City and Strabane District Council for a Derry/Londonderry city deal, as well as with rural councils.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
Due to Sinn Féin’s ongoing boycott of the Northern Ireland Assembly—for two years now—we have lost the significant and important scrutiny and transparency of the budget process. The Secretary of State has indicated that she will set a budget. Will she outline to the House what she is intending to do to get transparency of that process and of both the decisions made by her and the recommendations and decisions taken by the senior civil service in Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley
As I said earlier, it is quite right that, in the absence of Ministers in Stormont, a budget is set and properly set so that money can continue to be spent on public services. I followed a process last year that involved all the main parties and the Opposition to ensure that there was as much transparency as possible. It is a budget process, and without my having full Executive powers, there is clearly a limit to the amount I can do. However, I am determined that we will set the budget, and I will make sure that the hon. Lady’s party and others are involved.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
One consequence of not having a functioning Executive is that there has been no political oversight of the scandal of Muckamore Abbey. I have raised this personally with the Secretary of State and written to her. She knows that we had a sanctuary for adults with learning difficulties, and that they were physically abused and assaulted by nursing staff. On Friday, the nurses had their suspensions overturned. Why? Appallingly, the Belfast Trust has not provided the evidence and the CCTV to the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
This is a scandal, but it has not had full consideration here and, without Stormont, it certainly will not receive it at home. The Secretary of State knows that, through the Inquiries Act 2005, she is the only person capable of calling a public inquiry. Without a Minister in Northern Ireland, she is the one person who can do it. I ask her to engage earnestly with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and with the families and those who need answers on the failure we have seen in caring for those who need such significant care.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman has, indeed, raised this issue with me on a number of occasions. It is truly shocking and the reports that we have all seen from victims are ones that nobody should have to read. He makes the point that Ministers in Stormont would be able to make decisions and deal with this matter. I will continue to consider the points he has made and to review the position.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Secretary of State, the outcome of the historical institutional abuse inquiry—the Hart inquiry—was to be tabled just prior to Sinn Féin pulling the rug out and bringing down the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is inevitable that people will pass away—indeed, people have passed away—in the interim. It is vital that we move ahead and get a decision across the table as to how we will recompense some of these individuals.
Karen Bradley
The Hart inquiry was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). As I said in response, David Sterling, the head of the civil service in Northern Ireland, has commenced a consultation, which is ongoing. That would be needed even if there were Ministers in Stormont. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that the report was published after the Executive collapsed, and we have therefore had no reaction from Ministers to the recommendations. That makes life very difficult for all of us. We need to see Ministers in Stormont as soon as possible so that they can make the decisions when the consultation ends.
Points of Order
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This week, 12 Catalan leaders go on trial in Spain’s Supreme Court on charges of rebellion and sedition. If found guilty, they face sentences of up to 25 years in jail. Their supposed crime was organising a democratic referendum on Catalan independence in October 2017. One of their number was the President or Speaker of the Catalan Parliament, Carme Forcadell, whom you graciously welcomed to our House when she visited us as a free woman. Her alleged crime was allowing a debate on Catalan independence in the democratically elected Catalan Parliament.
Mr Speaker, I know that you cannot comment directly on these matters and I wish in no way to put you in a difficult position, but will you confirm that it would be in order for you to allow a debate on Welsh independence in this democratically elected House and for me to take part, and that neither you nor I would be likely to face arrest or long-term imprisonment for so doing?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise his point of order. Moreover, I am grateful for its substance, both because he raises an important point, to which I shall respond, and because it gives me the opportunity to say that I well remember welcoming Carme Forcadell when she came to this place—it was a privilege to do so.
On the substance of the matter, it is of course entirely orderly for there to be a debate in this House on Welsh independence. Members enjoy immunity for the words they utter in this Chamber and can come to no grief as a result of their freedom of expression. Moreover, I note in passing that as Speaker, I too enjoy immunity for the manner in which I preside over debates. Other people will fashion, and in many cases have done so, for better or for worse, their own arrangements. While ours are by no means incapable of improvement, and there are many people in this House who believe that there is much by way of parliamentary reform that can be accomplished, I think that on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised and the importance of democratic principle, we are very content with our arrangements. They could perhaps, in important respects, be imitated by others who proclaim a commitment to democracy. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the first urgent question on EU trade agreements, I stated that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) had opposed all 40 of the EU trade agreements in the first place. Can I say, for the benefit of the House, that on closer inspection, he actually abstained on one of them: the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement? Nevertheless, his complaint that the agreements, which he himself never voted to make operable in the first place, might no longer be operable after Brexit day still stands.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that I am immensely grateful. It was not a point of order, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman feels that he has made an important point. If the right hon. Gentleman goes about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step, and feels that he has achieved a notable parliamentary victory—well, if that brings a little happiness into the life of the right hon. Gentleman, I must say veritably, I am pleased for the feller.
Bill Presented
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 4) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Yvette Cooper, supported by Sir Oliver Letwin, Norman Lamb, Dame Caroline Spelman, Hilary Benn, Nick Boles, Jack Dromey, Mr Dominic Grieve, Stewart Hosie, Ben Lake, Liz Kendall and Clive Efford, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 335).
Bus Drivers (Working Hours on Local Routes)
Wednesday 13th February 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bus Drivers (Working Hours on Local Routes) Bill 2017-19 View all Bus Drivers (Working Hours on Local Routes) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit bus drivers on local routes to driving for no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any two consecutive weeks; and for connected purposes.
The Bill seeks to harmonise UK legislation on bus driving and working hours. It is supported by the road safety pressure group, Brake, and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, as well as by many Members in this place. Its origins are to be found in the terrible tragedy that was the bus crash in Coventry in 2015, in which two members of the public lost their lives: seven-year-old Rowan Fitzgerald and 76-year-old Dora Hancox. Such a tragedy is unimaginable for any family. May I start by welcoming Rowan’s mother, Natasha, and his grandmother, Barbara, who are here with us today? I thank them for their courage and encouragement, as I know this will be hard for them. The Bill has their absolute support.
I am not a specialist in transport legislation, nor on the working time directive, but avoidable tragedies such as the one that occurred on that fateful day in October 2015 must lead to the review of and changes to legislation. On that day, the bus driver was incapable of stopping his vehicle. His foot was pressed on the accelerator. Ultimately, it was the front of the Sainsbury’s store in Coventry city centre that brought the bus to a standstill. Rowan Fitzgerald, who was a pupil at St Antony’s school in Sydenham, Leamington, and 76-year-old Dora Hancox of Nuneaton were killed. Rowan was on his way home from watching his beloved Sky Blues—Coventry City. Dora was walking through the city centre on a shopping visit from Nuneaton. Several others, including Rowan’s cousin Paige Wilson, were seriously injured.
It was a busy Saturday afternoon in Coventry city centre. A video that was shown at the inquest revealed that the tragedy could have claimed even more lives. In it, the bus careers across the main road, striking another bus and lamp posts, before hurtling down a pavement and ploughing into a bus stop and then the supermarket. Were it not for the brave actions of Teil Portlock, who managed to disperse the pedestrians outside the Sainsbury’s, many others would have been killed or seriously injured.
What is most concerning is that it was an absolute inevitability that such a tragedy would happen. The driver that day was Mr Chander and the bus operator was Midland Red, which is part of Stagecoach Group. Mr Chander had been driving for the companies for several years and was retained as a relief driver on a casual contract. However, his hours were anything but casual. Although aged 77 years at the time, Mr Chander worked most days and had worked every day in the seven days leading to the accident. In the evidence given in court, it was confirmed that the company did not place any restriction on the number of hours he could work. As one of the controllers based at the Leamington depot put it:
“If there was a shift available and he wanted it, then he was given it.”
In consequence, he worked long hours and often worked five or six days a week. In addition, in the year leading up to the fatal accident, Mr Chander worked an average of 47 hours a week. That statistic disguises the number of hours worked during busy periods, namely school term-time. At those times, he would frequently work an excess of 56 hours a week and could drive school specials.
In the four weeks leading up to the crash he had driven 62 hours, 76 hours, 76 hours and 72 hours respectively, an average of 72 hours a week over that period—this, despite his shocking driving record. Between 2012 and 2014, the company received 16 written complaints from passengers about his erratic behaviour and the innumerable incidents. By Stagecoach’s own measures he should have been banned. The judge’s report provides more insight into those failings and the level of corporate ignorance stating:
“On Saturday 3 October, Mr Chander agree to swap shifts with another driver, meaning that he was now due to work an 11-hour shift”—
what is termed a spreadover.
“He agreed to do that having just completed a working week of 75 hours. In the morning he was driving a single-decker bus and, significantly, the CCTV shows him repeatedly rubbing his eyes as if tired. At approximately 5 pm, Mr Chander was waiting to take charge of a double-decker bus. Another driver told him he looked knackered and that he should say no. Mr Chander ignored that advice and set off, eventually coming to a bus stop on Hales street in Coventry city centre. At no point during the 11-second journey that followed did the driver engage the foot brake, pressing instead only the accelerator.”
In passing sentence, the judge concluded that the company was “highly culpable” and fined it £2.3 million.
This was a terrible tragedy, but of course there are many accidents every day. The data shows that there is a fundamental issue here. The fact that the driver had been driving so many long hours leading up to the crash was undoubtedly the critical factor that led to the accident. Currently, however, this is entirely legal under British law, as local bus drivers are not subject to the same working hour regulations as long-distance bus drivers or lorry drivers. Nor do the laws equate to those in the EU. Hours are clearly detrimental to passenger safety. British laws regulate bus drivers’ hours on local routes—that is, less than the 50 km limit—to just 10 hours a day, with no weekly or fortnightly limit except that in any two consecutive weeks there must be at least one period of 24 hours off duty. This means that it is entirely legal for a local bus driver to drive 130 hours over a period of two weeks. Under EU law, however, a long-distance bus driver or lorry driver cannot drive more than 56 hours a week or more than 90 hours over two consecutive weeks.
I believe this tragedy could have been avoided if driving hours for local bus drivers were capped at 56 hours a week and no more than 90 hours over any two consecutive weeks, as they are already for long-distance bus drivers and HGV drivers. That is the primary purpose of the Bill. However, the Bill also includes proposals for a move to EU regulations including bus drivers’ mandatory breaks, which would ensure a break of no less than 45 minutes be taken after no more than four and a half hours of driving. The break could be divided into two periods, the first at least 15 minutes and the second at least 30 minutes, taken over the four and a half hours. At present, the entitlement to a 30-minute break after five and a half hours behind the wheel often results in drivers taking smaller breaks or none at all due to congestion or other factors beyond their control. Additionally, the changes should be introduced by employers at no detriment to bus drivers’ pay.
The culture of long hours among bus drivers is accompanied by low wage rates, which places a dubious incentive on overtime. Over the past two decades, wages have fallen relative to average incomes. This is causing bus drivers to work nearly six hours a week more than average workers to sustain their incomes at a reasonable level. Regulations must prevent that, but must also ensure that bus drivers are paid properly for the essential public service they provide. This is important at a time when operators are cutting unprofitable routes and local councils are cutting funding to bus services.
There is also the need for regular independent health checks, beyond a driver’s GP, to ensure fitness for work. I am not the first to propose that. Back in 2015, some months before the Coventry crash, my right hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) proposed such changes in an early-day motion. Coincidentally, earlier that same year a report was published by the London Assembly Transport Committee, which looked into the reasons for bus crashes in London. It concluded that Transport for London should commission comprehensive and independent research into bus drivers’ working conditions. There were reports that bus drivers could be doing 16-hour shifts without adequate breaks. This was followed up in its 2017 report, “Driven to Distraction”, which noted high levels of stress reported among bus drivers caused by long shifts, inadequate breaks and irregular shift patterns. There have been up to 25 fatalities a year and thousands injured in bus incidents in London. It is now the time to legislate.
Way back in 2009, the Department for Transport conducted an extensive review of the effectiveness of the British domestic drivers’ hours rules. Following that review, it was decided not to make any changes, concluding that any additional restrictions would risk imposing unreasonable burdens on the industry. Ten years on and the burdens now lie with the drivers, not the operators. A reduction in routes served and buses has led to a reduction of 8,000 bus drivers since 2010. At the same time, their wages have fallen behind their peers, resulting in drivers working longer hours and more days to try to maintain their monthly earnings.
It is clear that this issue affects drivers across the country. I received comments from far and wide about this. By way of example, one convenor reported that about a third of drivers were working more than 50 hours a week. Elsewhere, a bus driver in Cornwall drives on a route which is longer than the 50 km limit, so it should come under strict EU rules for long distance drivers. However, the company splits the route into three, so that the same driver can continue the route and does not have to comply with the EU working hours restrictions. In Liverpool, a driver who used to work for Stagecoach said that they were regularly forced to work 12-hour shifts day after day, which caused fatigue.
The Bill proposes to limit the working hours of bus drivers and seeks simply to harmonise UK legislation by bringing consistency of working hours and restrictions between drivers on local and long distance bus routes and lorry drivers. It cannot be right that we have different regulation for freight vehicles and passenger vehicles. We must harmonise. We must legislate. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Matt Western, Mr Jim Cunningham, Alan Brown, Grahame Morris, Ian Mearns, Mr Marcus Jones, Mike Amesbury, Jo Platt, Anna McMorrin, Sir Peter Bottomley and Wera Hobhouse present the Bill.
Matt Western accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March, and to be printed (Bill 336).
Speaker’s Statement
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Colleagues, imminently we will come to the motion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House and I will look to the Leader of the House to move the motion of congratulation to Sir David Natzler. Just before I do, I should like to record my own brief tribute.
People across the House will know that David Natzler has served without interruption in this House for over four decades. If memory serves me correctly, he began in our service in 1975. That service has been unstinting, selfless, formidable and, I think and hope all would agree, quite exceptional. Blessed with a brilliant brain, an understated manner, unfailing courtesy, and an absolute and undiluted passion for Parliament, he has given both of his skills and of his endeavours throughout his time here in a manner which I think is universally appreciated. I mention that he has served for over four decades. My own experience of him, I confess, dates back only just over two, but I would like to record a couple of relevant facts.
I got to know David when he served as Clerk of the Trade and Industry Select Committee. I was briefly a member of that Committee, from 1998 to 1999, and was on it with the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), and indeed, the now right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle), the Senior Deputy Speaker of this House. The now Chairman of Ways and Means and I, and the hon. Gentleman, worked with and hugely benefited from David Natzler’s expertise—his procedural expertise and his ability to get to grips with the brief of the Committee and to offer us informed and invaluable advice on the vast miscellany of different inquiries that the Committee undertook.
As a Committee, we also travelled with David Natzler. Even if you are travelling somewhere very pleasant and staying in moderately salubrious surroundings, the camaraderie of the group, as I think all colleagues can testify, is important, and part of that is the contribution of our professional staff. David Natzler was a brilliant Clerk of the Committee. I am sure that that will be remembered, too, by its Chair for a decade, the former Member of this House and, between 1997 and 2005, the Member of Parliament for Ochil, now a Member of the other place—namely, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, known to many of us as Martin O’Neill. David was superb and he made a big and decisive difference to the operation of the Select Committee.
As Speaker, I have been privileged to know David Natzler in four of the roles that he has discharged for the House—as Clerk of Committees, Clerk of Legislation, Clerk Assistant and, since 2015, as Clerk of the House. As he approaches retirement, he will of course mark four years as Clerk of the House, which is a very normal period to serve as our Clerk, in the final role that a member of the Clerks service discharges to Parliament.
There is much that David has contributed, but I have a sense that he will be particularly proud of the work that he did back in 2009-10 on, and in support of, the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. Colleagues will recall that that Committee was chaired with great skill, courtesy and even-handedness by the former Member of this place for Cannock Chase, Dr Tony Wright.
I do not think I give much away if I say that David Natzler thirsted to clerk that Committee. He knew that it was the will of the House that reforms should be made to the running of this place—not only to the operation of the Chamber, but to the work, remit and manner of composition of our treasured Select Committees. David felt that he could input invaluably to that work, and I hope that colleagues will agree that he most assuredly did. That work had to be discharged, not least because of the proximity of a general election, with considerable dispatch, but with attention to detail and proper discrimination—I use the word “discrimination” in its best sense—between what was important and could not wait and what might be important but could. I think that if Tony Wright were in this Chamber now, he would agree that David Natzler clerked that Committee, to which I remember giving evidence, among many others, brilliantly.
David has been the most assiduous and dedicated servant of the House. He signalled to me, probably a year, if not 18 months ago, his desire to retire around now. I hope that all colleagues will join me—I very much look forward to what the Leader of the House has to say by way of tribute—in wishing Sir David and his wife, Hilary, a very long, rewarding and happy retirement.
Retirement of the Clerk of the House
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Sir David Natzler KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, this House’s gratitude for his long and distinguished service, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House and to modernising its practices, for his leadership and thoughtfulness in the discharge of his duties as head of the House Service, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
It is a real pleasure to move this motion in order to give the House the opportunity to pay tribute to Sir David Natzler today. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that David has given outstanding service to the House of Commons. David began working here in 1975 and has held a variety of senior posts within the Chamber and Committees Team, incorporating the former Department of Chamber and Committee Services and the old Clerks Department. This has included his work as a Clerk to a range of Select Committees, including the Social Services Committee, the Procedure Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee. He was Principal Clerk of Committees, Secretary to the House of Commons Commission, Principal Clerk of the Table Office, Clerk of Legislation and Clerk Assistant.
David served as acting Clerk of the House from September 2014 and was formally appointed as Clerk of the House in March 2015, the 50th person to fill the role. David’s commitment to this place is quite simply unrivalled. When he met his delightful wife, Hilary, at a party in London, he soon discovered that she worked for Hansard. They were married in 1988, and it proved an inspired choice. What a wonderful recipe for keeping a husband on his toes—a wife who can take down his words in evidence and use them against him!
David has been a source of procedural advice and parliamentary wisdom to many a Leader of the House, not just in his role as Clerk, but in many of the senior roles he has occupied. I know that he has relished working with a number of Leaders of the House, dating back to Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw, and more recently, as Clerk with William Hague and with my right hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington). As Secretary to the House of Commons Commission from 2004 to 2006, David also worked closely with the shadow Leaders of the House, including, at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), now the Prime Minister.
Since becoming Leader of the House in 2017, I have personally benefited from the advice and wisdom that David so readily provides to all who knock at his door. Over the past 18 months, David has worked closely with me and my office. We have been through thick and thin. I think it is fair to say that we have a mutually appreciated candour and a clear recognition of each other’s viewpoint in turbulent times. I have a huge amount of respect for David and the work he does. In more than a decade at the Table of the House, among his many talents he has developed an impressive ability to convey a wide range of emotions with the single raising of an eyebrow—something that you often miss, Mr Speaker, as his back is turned to you, but I can assure you that it is very meaningful.
Throughout the highs and lows of the past four years, David has had the best interests of the House at heart, and during that time, he has stacked up a number of important achievements. I know that he was delighted to have secured Richmond House as part of the Northern Estates project, and then, at the start of last year, to see the restoration and renewal programme finally get the approval of both Houses in the form recommended by the Joint Committee. I share his enthusiasm and I am pleased that the Government have worked collaboratively with Parliament in the preparatory work for restoration and renewal and in bringing forward the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.
David has also overseen the introduction of the Parliamentary Security Department, as well as the Parliamentary Digital Service. He helped to bring in the governance changes, as recommended by the Straw Committee in 2014, which notably included the recruitment of the Director General.
In recent months, David has led the House service through the immediate aftermath of the Dame Laura Cox report. It was an uncomfortable read for many in the senior House administration and for anyone who cares passionately about this House. However, I want to pay tribute to David for the way in which he and his staff have acted to make swift progress on the Cox recommendations. I know that many staff in the House have appreciated the time that he has taken to get out and talk to them—for example, in town hall meetings—in order to show his personal commitment to getting the House through this challenging period.
Over the years, David has played his part in moving us towards a less antiquated House through a number of changes that have definitely not been without controversy. For example, he oversaw the replacement of vellum with archival paper for the printing of new laws, for which goats around the United Kingdom will be grateful.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I would like to correct one detail, if I may. Sir David was delicate in negotiating between this House and the other place over the matter of vellum and came up with a very nice compromise, which was that laws would be encased in a vellum folder, albeit printed on paper inside. It was a typical David Natzler way of doing things.
Andrea Leadsom
It was a good compromise indeed, but in that case I revoke the gratitude I expressed on behalf of goats everywhere.
Sir David has greatly supported the recent introduction of our new ground-breaking proxy voting scheme and has driven forward the removal of wigs and court dress for Clerks at the Table in the Chamber.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am one of Sir David’s greatest admirers, but the Leader of the House is beginning to say things that are moving in the other direction. Can we go back to his love of tradition?
Andrea Leadsom
I was actually about to say that some of Sir David’s colleagues rather wish his clothing adjustments had extended to the scruffy white bowtie. David’s own bowtie tends towards the off-white shades more commonly favoured by trendy interior designers. I am sure my hon. Friend has a strong opinion on that.
It was a different modernising move that was the high point of David’s career. I am reliably informed that his personal high point was working with the Wright Committee on Reform of the House of Commons 10 years ago. This involved twice weekly extended private discussions—bordering on arguments—with a great number of Members about parliamentary politics and procedure. What more could a senior Clerk ask for?
As well as his official duties in the House, David has represented the Lords and Commons cricket team in their regular matches against the Dutch Parliament and played for parliamentary football and tennis teams. In his spare time, he is an ardent Shakespeare enthusiast, a founder member of the Richard Burbage Society and author of a scholarly essay entitled “The Two Gentlemen of Venice”—we can only speculate who they are. David’s intellectual gifts are part of parliamentary folklore—many a Member, myself included, has asked him a question and then struggled to keep up with the sheer subtlety of his arguments—but he is also blessed with a kindly heart and a vivid sense of humour.
I want to say a personal thank you to David both for his service to the House and for the collegiate way he has worked with me and my office in my time as Leader of the House. After 43 years, he should be proud that he leaves the House in a strong position to face the coming challenges of the next few months and years. In particular, I would like to wish him a very restful retirement. Few deserve it more and I imagine he is very much looking forward to it. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House very warmly for what she has said.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for her comments and you, Mr Speaker, for your tribute to Sir David Natzler. The Leader of the House rightly paid tribute to his extraordinarily distinguished career in public service and to the range of roles he has occupied with such distinction, and I endorse her words completely.
I want to share with the House more personal reflections on Sir David. It is a slight twist of fate, but my predecessor as Member for Walsall South, Bruce George, was close to Sir David in a number of ways. For a while, David was Clerk of his Committee, and whenever Bruce made a minor comment on a draft report and David said loudly “Oh my God”, while clapping both hands to his forehead, the Chair knew he was getting frank criticism. You do it, too, Mr Speaker, at the Commission, when you say, “David, you are frowning.”
David and Bruce played together in the parliamentary football team. I think they were probably the Laurel and Hardy of the team. I am told that David boasts of being qualified to play for every football team in the former Austro-Hungarian empire. As those who knew him will remember, Bruce played in goal. He was quite large and actually quite a good goalie, but in a recent game they played in together he did not keep a clean sheet. Unlike poor old Gordon Banks—rest in peace—he was having an off day, and David stalked up to him and said, “You’re allowed to use your hands, you know.”
As accounting officer for the House, Sir David has had to have a strong sense of value for money. When he was head of the Table Office, he used to take his staff down to Strangers’ Bar, and there would be quizzical looks on people’s faces, because David’s colleagues would have to whisper code words to the bar staff, such as “Borodino”, “Marengo” and “Leipzig”—he made his Table Office Clerks say the names of Napoleonic battles to bar staff so that no one else could use his tab! I wonder if the tab is still open.
The Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, rightly paid tribute to Sir David’s work on the Wright Committee. I managed to speak to Tony Wright, now professor of government and public policy at University College London, and former Member for Cannock Chase, and he said this:
“The fact that David was Clerk of the Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons was indispensable to its success. He made sure that what we said was credible and carried authority. At that time the House was in a very bad place, following the expenses scandal, and David shared my belief that one way to restore its reputation was by making changes that would make it count for more, both in terms of elections for select committees and for backbench control of its own business. The fact that these reforms have become embedded in how the House operates is a tribute to the quality of the Reform Committee's report, and that is tribute to David himself. At a personal level, working with him was one of the most enjoyable periods of my parliamentary life. His combination of impish humour and formidable intellect made working with him a real joy. The House owes him a huge debt.”
As the principal constitutional adviser to the House and adviser on all its procedure and business, David has frequently appeared before Select and Joint Committees, and his evidence has always been highly valued. The Leader of the House mentioned the speed at which proxy voting was introduced. David did a lot of work behind the scenes to ensure that the first vote took place on 29 January. He is responsible—though not for much longer—for the 2,500 members of staff who make up the House service and Parliamentary Digital Service.
As Clerk of the House, Sir David has always striven to be helpful to staff and held several open meetings, including question and answer sessions. As well as going the extra mile himself in his daily duties, he has held tea parties to recognise staff who have gone the extra mile too. The staff have great respect and affection for him. One staff member, Dr Anna Dickson, said:
“David played an important role in setting up ParliREACH, the workplace equality network for Race, Ethnicity and Cultural Heritage in 2013. From the name to championing it at board level over the last five years. From chairing events to opening his official residence to the network and, most importantly, he has been a critical friend of the Committee”.
David was one of the first volunteers to take part in the ParliREACH reverse mentoring programme, which allows junior BAME staff members to mentor a senior manager. The objective was to give senior managers an insight into the organisation and its policies from the perspective of BAME staff. He has had two such mentors, both of whom have now left the House service. He thinks he may be partially responsible.
Coming from an immigrant background himself, Sir David has always been a keen supporter of and speaker at all-staff events hosted by ParliREACH, in particular looking at the implications of Brexit for non-UK EU staff working in Parliament. He has made sure that all staff who currently work here feel confident that they will not lose their jobs. After one such event in 2016, he committed the House to supporting people financially with applying for citizenship—a bold step, as you know, Mr Speaker. David was also a regular speaker at ParliREACH’s Holocaust Memorial Day events, where he spoke emotionally of the terrible effects of the holocaust on his own family.
Sir David has also been a champion of the House’s talent management scheme, which aims to enable women and BAME staff to develop their potential within the organisation, and has never shied away from inconvenient truths, even when they have reflected on him. He would always find a way to help people, and to steer ParliREACH in the right direction. He has been a passionate, consistent and entirely approachable supporter. Ken Gall, president of the trade union side, has said:
“He is a decent man who has kept his humour and his humanity during some of the most challenging times in recent parliamentary history. I absolutely trust him to tell me the truth.”
Many say that David’s more detached and calm approach can be attributed to the influence of his wife, Hilary. David would be the first to pay tribute in saying that meeting Hilary, at the time a reporter for Hansard, changed him immeasurably for the better. Hilary was a daughter of the manse, and they were married at Greyfriars Kirk in Edinburgh in 1988, with Hilary’s uncle, the Professor of Systematic Theology at Aberdeen university, officiating. Theirs has been a wonderful partnership, and they have three lovely children, Robert, Beatrice and Michael. Hilary has ensured that all David’s latent kindness and decency have fully emerged. No one who encountered him in 1975 would have thought that he would end up as the DJ—sorry, sound engineer—at the Church of Scotland’s Sunday services at St Columba’s Church in Pont Street.
David’s successor, Dr John Benger, said this:
“Very few can match his relentless intellectual curiosity and the breadth and depth of his knowledge. He has made an enormous contribution to public life and we will miss him.”
Let me add, on a personal note, that he has always been supportive of me in my role, and, on constitutional issues and on any other matters, he has always striven to give a constructive answer. I have to say that he never sounded happier than when I spoke to him on the phone. He was overlooking the Bay of Naples, and was about to deliver a lecture to an international audience, but he still had time to deal with the matter that I had to raise with him. I must also say, on behalf of our Chief Whip and Luke and Simon in the office, that they all value his wisdom and advice at Commission meetings and at meetings with Members. He understands the nature of Parliament and the role of Members, balanced with the constitutional duties of the Clerks and the staff of the House. It was especially pleasing to see him at a “reverse mentoring” event: I actually saw him dishing out potatoes in the Adjournment dining room, wearing his pinny, while the chef, Terry, looked on in amazement.
I thank David for his friendship and his advice, and I thank him for devoting himself to the public service of the House. I thank him for serving democracy in our country, and for leaving behind the legacy of a functioning democratic institution and a legacy of investing in people, so that when others come after him, everything will be the same.
So, David Lionel Natzler, this was your life in Parliament. The whole House wishes you and your family a wonderful life outside Parliament.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. Both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader have engagingly captured Sir David’s wisdom, warmth and wit. I too have benefited from all those qualities, and I thank them both for what they have said in leading our debate on this important occasion.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
My remarks will be brief, but no less heartfelt for their brevity. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I have known Sir David Natzler for 35 of his 43 years in the House, and it has been a privilege to regard him as a friend and colleague. For 21 of those 35 years, I have had the honour to be a member of the Panel of Chairmen. All of us who serve on your Panel, Sir, know how heavily we have come to rely on the advice and the wisdom of all the Clerks with whom we work, and we all know—every single one of us—that without their assistance and guidance, the work would be very much harder, if not impossible. Those of us who have sat alongside Sir David Natzler in Committees and in Westminster Hall—and, on occasion, in Committees of the whole House in the Chamber—have benefited hugely from, yes, his advice and, yes, his wisdom, but also from his friendship and his persistently dry humour at all times.
On behalf of, I hope, all the members of the Panel of Chairmen, I say, “Thank you, Sir David, and we wish you and your wife a long and very happy retirement.”
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) sends apologies for his absence. He, and all of us in the SNP, hold Sir David in the highest regard, and I echo all the tributes that have already been paid to him, particularly those relating to his role in the Cox inquiry and the introduction of proxy voting.
I remember that in the 2015 Parliament, when many SNP Members were first elected, Sir David had just been appointed, and I was described by you, Mr Speaker, as a “distinguished ornament” of the Procedure Committee. It was in that capacity that I had the first chance to interact with the Clerk, who was a regular witness at our evidence sessions, not least as the tortuous process of English votes for English laws was being introduced. I suspect that what you, Mr Speaker, have described as his “scholarly cranium” was put to considerable use throughout the devising of those procedures and, indeed, as they have been implemented with varying success in the months and years since then.
As if EVEL were not of enough constitutional significance, Sir David—as the Leader of the House said—also oversaw the reform of the use of vellum and the abandoning of wigs by the Clerks in the Chamber. That was not simply about dusting down stuffy old practices; it had the very practical effect of allowing a far wider range of Clerks to gain experience at the Table of the House, which will encourage the professional development of staff across the Chamber directorate. That, I think, is a testament to the ambition that, as we heard from the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), Sir David has always held for the service of staff in the House.
Let me, on behalf of the SNP, express our thanks and gratitude for the advice and support that we receive from all the Clerks in all the various offices, and, of course, warmly congratulate Dr John Benger on his appointment as the 51st Clerk of the House. He is already a familiar and well-respected figure here in Parliament, and we look forward to working closely with him in the months and years to come. I cannot say for certain whether Dr Benger will end up in the same circumstances in which SNP Members have sometimes led Sir David to find himself—not least during a memorable session of Prime Minister’s Question Time last year when he had to advise you, Mr Speaker, on the application of Standing Order 43 (Disorderly conduct) after my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) had attempted to invoke Standing Order 163 (Motions to sit in private). I think that we saw Sir David’s arched eyebrow in overdrive during that particular session.
Sir David’s long experience in the House meant that, on that day and in similar historic situations throughout these years of Brexit and minority government, he has been a point of calm, stability and neutral perspective. That, I think, has been appreciated by Members of all parties who have sought his advice. So after these turbulent years and his many decades of service, who can deny him the chance of a bit of rest and relaxation? We wish him and Lady Natzler every happiness for the years to come—although I suspect that we may not have seen the very last of him quite yet. All the best, and slàinte mhath.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
You, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader have recited the encyclopaedic list of Sir David’s achievements. I shall not repeat them, but they will appear in Hansard, and they will be worth reading.
Many of us did not recognise Sir David when we came into the Chamber, because he was one of the three “wigs” sitting on the bench, until the wigs were removed. As has been mentioned, however, a few of us have had the pleasure of working closely with him, either in Committees or individually. I am thinking particularly of the Commission, the Joint Audit Committee and the other Audit Committees. I, for one, always took Sir David’s advice when I asked for it individually, but not everybody did. He is very exacting. One of my colleagues, to her great amusement, was recently informed, politely but emphatically, that a letter was a letter and an email was an email, but an email was not a letter and a letter was not an email. The bemusement was worth watching.
Sir David’s humour keeps sneaking through, however, and anyone who had the pleasure of reading the letters between this House and the other place on the discussion—I will call it a discussion—of the role of the Pugin Room was in for a treat. Key members of staff retiring or moving on often had a thank you party in his rooms facing on to Parliament Street; his thank you speeches were a merciless delight. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I had regular meetings with him in the office at the back; that was because he is a member of the Finance Committee and I am chairman of the Administration Committee, not for any other reasons. However, it was his role to help the two of us put together an amendment for the restoration and renewal debate some months ago. His advice was that he would help, but it would not be carried. He helped, but he said he was so sure it would not be carried that he would put a bottle of champagne on it failing. I understand that on the evening of the debate he went home early enough to turn on the Parliament channel; that has to be devotion—or is it a case of “get a life”? Anyway, I am reliably told that when the vote went through he gave a cheer with raised arms as if England had won the rugby world cup—a pretty rare possibility—but I still await the champagne.
Like everybody in the House who has got to know Sir David, I wish him and his wife the very best for their retirement. Given his sense of humour, I hope he writes his memoirs, and I would like a signed copy.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and to say a few words on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this House about Sir David Natzler, a man whose contribution will be enormously missed; he has been an exceptionally distinguished holder of a distinguished office.
As others have said, he entered the House service in 1975, and in 1981 he assumed the office of Clerk of Select Committees, where the early decades of his career were spent. His influence there is to be seen in the way in which the Select Committees have grown in stature as part of the operation of this House. It is difficult to remember now that in 1979 they were something of a radical novelty.
As a Minister and Chief Whip for my party and the former coalition Government, I often had recourse to seek procedural advice from him and his predecessor Lord Lisvane. Sir David’s advice was always everything we would expect from the Clerks’ office: candid, independent, trustworthy and always rooted in an understanding of, and respect for, the rules that govern this House. He understood that for the House to perform its functions as it ought to, it had to have respect for its own rules; indeed, if we do not respect our own rules, how can we expect others to respect the rules we make for them?
Sir David was, however, an enormously approachable figure in what is otherwise a very magisterial office. He was always willing to offer Members of Parliament a way to save themselves if they only had the wit and humility to take it. Indeed, humility was just one of the considerable attributes he brought to the role of Clerk, as seen when he was prepared to acknowledge previous failings that he and all of us have had in how we have carried out our business in the past. That was not easy, I am certain, but it was very necessary, and the fact that he was able to do it with style and gravitas says a lot about the man.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
As Mr Speaker alluded to earlier, many years ago now, he and the Chairman of Ways and Means and I served on the Trade and Industry Committee with Sir David and one thing always stands out in my mind about the Clerk of the House: anyone might have thought he was a bit of a Scotsman because he was certainly very frugal, to say the least, about expenditure and paying expenses. Gordon Brown always liked to talk about prudence, and I often wondered whether they came out of the same nest. Nevertheless, he often gave me good advice and he will be badly missed in this House; it will probably be a long time before we see his like again.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure that is the case, and the hon. Gentleman tees up my next thought perfectly. I have been moved to consider what makes a good Clerk. I am sure that there are many qualities and influences that one must bring to bear, but when I consider those who served as Clerk in my time in this House, I think of Sir William McKay, Sir Malcom Jack, the now Lord Lisvane and Sir David himself, and in the lives of two of them, Sir William McKay and Sir David, there have been strong Presbyterian influences. The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), referred to Sir David’s membership and regular attendance at the Church of Scotland congregation in Pont Street, and it strikes me that to be a Presbyterian often puts one in a place where one has to be close to the establishment and to authority, and to understand it, but not necessarily be part of it. I do not think it would come as a surprise to any of us in these challenging times to think that anyone holding the office of Clerk of the House of Commons might have cause to have recourse to prayer, and I have mused whether in those moments of prayer in the magnificent surroundings of St Columba’s, Pont Street, Sir David was seeking guidance from the Almighty or offering advice. Fortunately and happily, that is known only to Sir David and the Almighty. I venture the thought that of course offering advice to an omnipotent deity should not be undertaken lightly, as one risks incurring the wrath of God. I am sure if that were ever to be the case, Sir David would be able to meet the wrath of God with the good humour, equanimity and aplomb we would all expect from a man of his knowledge and experience.
I had always thought that Sir David had never offered an opinion with which I could disagree, but ahead of today’s debate, I made the mistake of putting his name into Google, and I found an article on the website of the constitution unit of University College London where he is quoted, I hope correctly, as saying,
“most members of the UK parliament do not come to Westminster expressly to legislate, but to support their parties.”
From that one sentence, it is clear that Sir David’s considerable experience has been gained in the Clerks’ office and never in the Whips Office. Now that perhaps his time might permit it, as Liberal Democrat Chief Whip I would be more than happy to offer him a work experience placement in our Whips Office for him to gain a slightly more rounded experience of how this place works. There is one further interesting sentence in that article:
“Natzler concluded with a suggestion for future research on rebellious opposition backbenchers.”
I am not entirely sure why he restricted that to Opposition Back Benchers, but there is clearly a rich vein of future research and discourse to be had here.
Sir David leaves Parliament with an enormous wealth of knowledge and experience acquired over many years of distinguished service. I hope that last sentence from the UCL website is an indication that this is not an end of his engagement with our Parliament and politics. He has had a long and distinguished service in this House, and I am sure all in this House hope he will have a long and distinguished retirement.
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Not for the first time, he has reminded us that he has served as his party’s Chief Whip, but I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that he has indeed served as his party’s Chief Whip, and with distinction, but that since then he has been promoted.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I am sorry that I was late in attending the Chamber, Mr Speaker; the Procedure Committee was meeting.
Sir David has been an absolute brick to this rather gauche Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I bounce into his office on a regular basis, demonstrating the clear thinking of the totally uninformed. I am sat down, and he demonstrates the deep thinking of the totally informed. He never says no. He normally says, “Charles, brilliant idea—let’s work together to make it even better.” By the time I leave his office, we have the kernel of a good idea that we can take forward.
Sir David is a truly great man. His ethos of public service and his commitment to excellence and to this place reverberate around the corridors of the House of Commons. This is seen in all the Clerks who work with him and for him, from the most senior Clerks to those who are just starting on their journey—a journey that might take them to the highest office in this place over the next 40 years. I shall miss his wisdom greatly. He has been a fantastic friend. He is always willing to listen and, most importantly, he has always been willing to guide. In a sense, he is a bit like a father figure. Father figures love to hear the voices of their children and, in hearing those voices, they can often moderate them and direct them to great purpose and better things. He has been a huge influence on my time in this place, and as I have said, I shall miss him immensely.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is a great privilege and honour to follow the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and all the other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this tribute to Sir David Natzler. I rise on behalf of my party colleagues and, I suppose, on behalf of the smaller parties in this House, to put on record our gratitude to Sir David for all the work, help and advice that he has given to us over many years and to Members before us who had occasion to work alongside him but who have now left this place. They will recall with fondness and gratitude his advice to them in times past.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned Sir David’s Presbyterian background. Coming from the Presbyterian tradition myself, I know what it is—certainly now—to be close to the establishment’s power and to understand it but not to be part of it. I have had to adapt to that. This reminds us that Sir David has had the great privilege, as Clerk Assistant and now as Clerk of the House, to be present in those distinguished positions at a time when we have had a full-blown coalition Government, then a traditional majority Government and now a Government who are in office through a confidence and supply arrangement. Within eight or nine years, every type of Government possible under the British constitution has been in place here, which is unique in the history of this country. Given those changing circumstances, his advice, experience, wisdom and expertise have been even more vital and invaluable.
The expenses scandal of 2009-10 has already been mentioned. That was a very difficult time for the House and for the Members who were here. Sir David’s wisdom and guidance at that time, and the work that he did on the reform of the House, were absolutely invaluable. His courtesy and his accessibility at all times to individual Members of our party and other parties are well known, and I want briefly but very sincerely to wish him and his wife and family a very happy and blessed retirement. I hope that they can enjoy it for many years to come.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is presumptuous of a Back Bencher who has been here for less than nine years to join in paying tributes to a distinguished Clerk of the House, Sir David Natzler, who has been here for 44 years. It also runs contrary to the advice that I understand he used to offer on pieces of paper to junior Clerks in his Committees: “K.Y.M.S.” This stood for “keep your mouth shut”. I am glad that I have joined in this tribute, however, partly because I have learned so much more about David Natzler from the gracious tributes that have already been paid by right hon. and hon. Members, and partly because this has reinforced my belief, as an obscure Back Bencher, that one thing about this House—which, even for the most self-confident, can be a daunting place on arrival—is the ability to benefit from the kindly and wise advice of people who have huge experience here. When I have talked about David Natzler to other MPs, Doormen and other people working in Parliament, the one word—almost the leitmotif—that shines forth time and again is the word “approachable”. That is something that we should all treasure.
Others have mentioned David’s modest lifestyle, his dry wit and his personal kindness, but one thing I had never associated with the Clerk of the House was the concept that he might be a headbanger. In fact, I believe that he did bang his head on the table quite often as Clerk of the Defence Committee. We must hope that it had a more positive impact on the Select Committee than it did on his head or his health. Perhaps it will give courage to those of my colleagues who have been called headbangers that some of the most distinguished servants of this House have also banged their heads from time to time.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I was not here at the start of this debate because I was chairing a statutory instrument Committee. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Clerk of the House is someone of immense courtesy who is respected across all the parties and who will be very much missed. Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly during the past few months when the House has faced many different challenges, Sir David’s wisdom, judgment and understanding have been absolutely superb, and that he will be greatly missed?
Richard Graham
Yes, I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said.
The Clerk of the House is a remarkable man, and I hope, given that his own father is still with us, that he has inherited that longevity and that he will have many decades ahead. I hope that he will be able to find the time to share some of his experience and wisdom with other Clerks of other Parliaments, not least through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, so that we may continue to benefit from the wisdom that my hon. Friend and many other Members have referred to today. It is his approachability for which I shall remember him most.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It was with no small amount of trepidation that I, as a new Member of this House and already somewhat daunted by the complexity of parliamentary procedure and protocol, discovered that the most senior Clerk was my constituent. I rise this afternoon to say thank you to Sir David Natzler for his dedicated service to Parliament over four decades, for the kindness and patience that he has shown to me, for his answers to questions from me and members of my team, and for taking the time in the early weeks after the 2015 election to knock on my office door to see how we were settling in. That unfailing kindness and approachability are the hallmarks of David’s service.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is describing David Natzler’s character extremely well. Does she agree that one thing about him that is so nice for Members—it has not always been the case—is that he does not treat them like nursery schoolchildren?
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know how much David’s kind, patient and generous approach, as well as his intellect and immense knowledge, will be missed in this place, although I take some comfort from my recent discovery that the new Clerk of the House is also a resident of my constituency.
I am sure that David’s retirement from this place will not be the end of his working life and that there are many spheres in which he will continue to contribute. David has many interests, both in our local community in Dulwich and West Norwood and further afield, that he will pursue after 1 March. They include Dulwich Picture Gallery, local history and, as he mentioned to me recently, a compassionate concern for refugees living in our community. I look forward to seeing him progressing issues and projects in our local area and further afield; he will make an enormous impact in many different ways. I know how much David’s family, his wife Hilary and their children, will value having him around a bit more, and I wish David and his family all the very best for a long, happy and productive retirement.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
As one of the few people who accepts the fact that wigs are no longer commonly worn in this place with a certain sad nostalgia tinged with tristesse, I can forgive Sir David that because of his unfailing decency, kindness and extraordinary characteristics in so many other ways. I first became aware of the depths of his intellect when I was on a plane journey with him going somewhere interesting— probably Belfast. I was whiling away the journey by dipping into the Viz annual and he was reading an old annotated copy of “The Dutch Seaborne Empire”. As he sat there, it was almost as if the air around that noble cerebellum was crackling with the intellectual activity pulsing from that great brain, and I soon came to realise the depth, the breadth and the extent of that extraordinary knowledge.
One evening, the House was wrestling with the very tricky question of the illegal parking of skips on the streets of London, and we turned our minds and our collective consciousness—the intellect of the entire House—to working out how one would actually get rid of an illegally parked skip, and Sir David was sitting in his usual place. The next day, as I walked past his then study, where he was enthroned like the Master of Balliol, he beckoned me inside and said, “This morning at breakfast, my family and I were discussing that question, and there are a few things you should be aware of. Firstly, within the profession, skips are called bins. They are not referred to as skips. To use the expression ‘skips’ immediately identifies you as someone completely unfamiliar with the bulk removal of rubble and refuse. Furthermore, there is a mechanism for the removal of these illegally parked bins, which is well known within the profession. It is a dorsal elevation via lateral lugs.” He drew for me the mechanism, setting out the dynamics of how it could be done, and I thought, “I am in the presence of greatness, because not only is this a man who knows more about the procedure of this House than almost anyone and not only is this a man who has saved the reputations of many a humble parliamentarian by passing them a note—best not repeated on the Floor of the House—but this is a man who understands bulk waste, rubble and refuse removal and was prepared actually to share that with us.”
These occasions are often times of obituary rather than encomiums to those who are still with us. That makes this occasion all the more joyous and all the more joyful, because Sir David is with us and will be with us for many years to come. For however many years he enjoys his time outside and in Dulwich, with all its numerous pleasures that I may one day visit if I am ever allowed, no one in this House has not benefited from his kindness, his decency, his courtesy, his approachability and his wisdom. I cannot imagine anyone capable of doing that job better than he. That is not to put pressure on his successor; I am simply saying that Sir David Natzler is one of a kind. He is the Natzler of Natzlers, the Clerk of Clerks, and I will always be grateful to him.
Mr Speaker
We have already heard wonderful tributes from all quarters of the House, and it does seem fitting now to call a great parliamentarian. I call Hilary Benn.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. I join all those who have spoken so eloquently and beautifully in tribute to Sir David in rising to share with the House just two memories of him. It is a great pity that he is not present. I do not know whether it is natural modesty on his part or a tradition of the House that the Clerk is not here in person to hear the tributes. If it is the latter, there is an act of modernisation yet to come, and I hope that those who lead on such things will take due and careful attention.
Reference has been made to Sir David’s wit, and I first encountered it one sunny morning when I arrived off the underground and came across Sir David getting off his bicycle in New Palace Yard. I greeted him cheerily and said, “So, how long does it take you to cycle in every day, David?” and he looked at me with a stern face and then his eyes twinkled and he said, “About a minute longer every year.” If my maths is any good, after 40 years that must be a hell of a bicycle journey into the House of Commons.
The second memory is of a much more sombre and sad occasion. It was the day after the murder of PC Keith Palmer. I think I was walking back from 4 Millbank, and I decided to come in through St Stephen’s entrance. There I found two of our wonderful staff who greet the visitors every day, and who else but David, who had come out to ask them, “How are you? How are you feeling?” Imagine being those members of staff, absolutely on the frontline, the day after one of our own had been murdered along with the tourists and others killed on the bridge. At that moment, the visitors who came by were directed, as the conversation was interrupted, and would have had absolutely no idea—we talk about the great and the good—that the man standing there in a raincoat with a slightly skew-whiff white bow tie, talking with care and compassion to our staff, was Sir David Lionel Natzler KCB, the Clerk of the House of Commons. That is typical of the man to whom today we pay such deep and heartfelt tribute in wishing him and all his family the very best for the future.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), both of whom have served here longer than the Under Clerk, may I, as one who also came here in 1975, say that I think his title of Under Clerk of the Parliaments is one that should be remembered? His first predecessor in 1363 was paid £5 a year. If anyone looks at the 1824 Act about the Clerk of the Parliaments, who is up the other end of the building, they will see that it tends to defend all their emoluments, advantages and other ways of skimming off cash that are not allowed either on this side of the Palace of Westminster or, I hope, up there as well.
We must remember that in paying tribute to Sir David we are saying thank you also to all those who have worked with him. Not every Clerk can become the Under Clerk, but all of them work together seamlessly. That is partly down to leadership, but a lot of it relates to the community and to combined tradition and ethics.
We must also remember that, as the Under Clerk, Sir David is editor of “Erskine May” and if he is appointed to the House of Lords—I am not saying that he necessarily will be—I hope that he will last longer than Erskine May did. Sir Thomas Erskine May was dead seven days after he was appointed to the House of Lords—seven times longer than the shortest barony, which was that of Frederic Leighton, who lasted for only 24 hours—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) looks shocked, so I tell her to watch out if she ever gets sent up to the other place.
We must remember that, in the years leading up to his being Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir David went through many roles. If, like some of his ancestors, he lives to 100, that is another 35 years—rather a short time, given all the things he is capable of doing.
Let us hope that people recruited to the House service will look to those who have been Clerks and Assistant Clerks and say that serving the House, not as a civil servant, is as important as being elected to serve as a Member of Parliament. We look on him as one of ours, and I hope he looks on us as his friends.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Sir David Natzler KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, this House’s gratitude for his long and distinguished service, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House and to modernising its practices, for his leadership and thoughtfulness in the discharge of his duties as head of the House Service, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
Business of the House (Today)
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I can usefully announce the result of the deferred Division. In respect of the question relating to intellectual property, the Ayes were 308 and the Noes were 267, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Securitisation Regulations 2018
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That the Securitisation Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 1288), dated 3 December 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 December 2018, be revoked.
These regulations are not labelled as no-deal preparatory regulations, but they are being pushed through via a statutory instrument in the middle of a series of about 70 Brexit-related statutory instruments relating to financial services, including one relating specifically to the operation of the securitisation regime. The matters raised by this instrument require more debate and scrutiny than they have been afforded. It is for that reason that we asked for this debate on the Floor of the House.
As the Minister will be aware, the official Opposition also requested a debate on the Floor of the House about the transposition of the markets in financial instruments directive no-deal regulations via an SI. Those regulations were so complex that they required the production of a Keeling schedule, yet they were pushed through as a negative SI without any broader debate. This SI may be less wide-ranging than the other one but, like it, it is focused on the aspects of the financial system that precipitated and amplified the 2008 financial crisis.
Securitisation refers to the pooling of different kinds of loans or debts and their repackaging into a single financial product that is sold to investors. The use of complex, opaque securitisations—particularly those linked to the US sub-prime housing market—has been viewed as a key element in transporting the negative impact of the credit crunch through the financial system into the heart of major financial institutions. It is therefore essential that any legislation proposing changes to the regulation of securities be carefully reviewed.
The regulations have three main causes of concern. First, schedule 1 amends primary legislation—the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Schedule 1(8) nullifies the effect of section 399 of the Financial Services and Markets Act and disapplies section 402. Delegated legislation generally should not be used to amend primary legislation. Otherwise, it would allow the exercise of what lawyers and judges have disparagingly described as Henry VIII clauses. Put simply, primary legislation that has been drafted and reviewed by Parliament as a whole should not generally be revoked through statutory instruments. It might be argued that these regulations are part of a broader package of delegated legislation bringing in a new regime, but any regime of financial regulation is best set out in primary legislation. The Opposition made that point only two days ago in the debate on the transposition of so-called in-flight EU financial services legislation.
The EU securitisation regulations are wide-ranging. For example, they impose a number of requirements on institutional investors to carry out due diligence before investing in a securitisation position. They relate not only to individual decisions about specified positions, but to the creation of new procedures for monitoring compliance and stress-testing. They also introduce numerous requirements for transparency for securitisation, requiring the originator, the sponsor and the securitisation special purpose entity to designate one of their number to provide details of the securitisation, either to a repository or on a website. Finally, they provide preferential treatment to so-called simple, transparent and standardised securitisations, enabling them to be discounted for the purpose of allocating credit margins.
A core element of STS securitisation is the retention by originators, sponsors and original lenders of a 5% stake in the securitisation, described colloquially as “skin in the game”. Those involved must also follow certain transparency and due diligence requirements. As such, although the regulation does to an extent consolidate existing legislation, it also significantly loosens the burden of capital retention for banks using STS securitisations compared with the previous situation. Some stakeholders felt that reigniting the use of securitisation through this legislation would help to promote liquidity and boost economic activity, given that it, in effect, allows higher levels of borrowing by the economic actors whose debt is repackaged in the securitisation. However, many others point to the potential dangers this poses for financial stability if unsafe, non-transparent and overly complex securitisations are allowed to fall within the STS bracket. This is especially the case given the reduced capital requirements to balance off the default risk from STS securitisations. I hardly need to remind this House of the problems caused to the sustainability of financial institutions and the subsequent calls made on the taxpayer due to insufficient margin being held by the banks against the risks they held.
Secondly, these provisions amending primary legislation affect the criminal offences that are on the statute book. The legislation permits the use of sanctions for cases of negligence and intentional infringement, for example, fraudulent reporting of STS status. In addition, however, the provisions alter existing offences. The regulations appear to say that section 399 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which establishes an offence of misleading the Competition and Markets Authority, does not apply. In addition, paragraph 8 of schedule 1 prevents the Financial Conduct Authority from instituting proceedings for money laundering and insider dealing. It is not clear why, on the basis of this statutory instrument alone, this needs to follow from the parent legislation. Why, if we are reading this complex statutory instrument right, does it abolish the offence of misleading the CMA and prevent the FCA from instituting proceedings for money laundering and insider dealing? What problem are these provisions addressing? Why are these changes being achieved through this piece of secondary legislation? We hope that we can receive some clarification on these points. If we cannot, these provisions would appear to be troubling. Because of the impact on people’s liberties and the overall balance of offences on the statute book, which surely should be as public and accessible as possible, criminal offences should not be altered by delegated legislation in this manner.
Thirdly, and finally, these regulations transfer significant powers to the FCA to supervise compliance. It might be said that the FCA is the orthodox body to develop financial regulation and to ensure compliance with it, but there is a need for full debate about the allocation of responsibility for supervision and compliance. The original EU regulation provides no obligation for the FCA to be designated as the competent authority, so this is a political choice. It is also not clear, on the basis of this statutory instrument, whether the FCA has sufficient resourcing and capacity to carry out these tasks. It is not optimal or desirable for these powers to be transferred via a statutory instrument.
These powers are, of course, complicated by the interaction of this SI with the no-deal SI related to securitisation, which transfers the responsibility of the European Systemic Risk Board, for assessing and mitigating systemic risk, to the “competent authorities”. The latter are, as I understand it, here designated as the Prudential Regulation Authority, the FCA and the Bank, with systemic risk here identified as
“a material risk to the financial stability of a financial institution or to the financial system as a whole”.
Under this approach, the FCA would also be able to permit re-securitisation for specified legitimate purposes, an important exception to the general ban imposed from this legislation on re-securitisation. The general ban prevents the underlying assets of a securitisation from being themselves already securitised assets—this is one of many activities that produced the highly complex and opaque securitisations linked to contagion during the financial crisis. As part of these regulations, the FCA would be responsible for ensuring that those engaged in a securitisation complied with the relevant transparency requirements. It is especially important that these kinds of regulatory developments receive scrutiny, given the contention around elements of the securitisation package and, in particular, whether it is sufficiently stringent. What became known as “skin in the game” was set in the regulation at 5% of risk to be retained across each mode of risk retention, despite calls for a higher level from many quarters. Indeed, many actors within the EU questioned whether securitisation should be encouraged in the first place through the creation of the STS designation. Given that the resultant regulations were a balance between very polarised positions on this subject, it is essential that we properly scrutinise the transposition of these measures into UK law. For that reason, we have prayed against these measures being transferred purely through an SI process.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
As part of our obligations while the UK remains a member of the EU, it is our responsibility to ensure that domestic law is compatible with EU legislation. That includes this statutory instrument, which will, as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, ensure that the EU securitisation regulation is effective and enforceable in the UK. It is not an EU-exit statutory instrument through which functions are transferred from an EU authority to domestic authorities. The instrument that does that—the Securitisation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—was laid on 23 January and will be debated in due course.
It might be helpful if I gave the House some background information. The securitisation market’s slow recovery after the financial crisis reflects concerns among investors and prudential supervisors about risks associated with the securitisation process itself. The EU responded by proposing in 2015 legislative measures to promote a transparent and liquid market for securitisation. There were 120 responses to the 2015 consultation that gave rise to the regulations, which evolved over two years of EU discussions. They were then scrutinised in Parliament and were approved by the House of Lords scrutiny Committees in July 2017 and by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee in February 2017.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Minister mentioned the number of consultation responses; were they from throughout the EU or just from companies and organisations in the UK?
John Glen
I am not certain, but I would imagine they were from the UK. It was an extensive consultation that led to the evolution of the regulations, which were then scrutinised at different intervals by the Lords and Commons Committees before their final approval in 2017.
The UK voted in favour of the package of reforms in 2017 because it ensures high standards of process, legal certainty and comparability through a greater degree of standardisation of products. The new rules bear no relation to the securitisation of sub-prime mortgages created in the US that contributed so significantly to the financial crisis. Along with other legislation, including on the overhaul of the credit ratings agencies and more stringent rules for mortgage and credit granting, the proposals build on the lessons learned from the financial crisis by improving regulation and oversight, and they implement standards introduced by the international supervisory community.
The EU regulation, which the instrument we are debating implements, is derived from the new international standards set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions. These two bodies worked to create a new framework of high-quality securitisations to introduce the degree of assurance around the information on securitisation that was necessary in the markets. Their work seeks to restore an important funding channel for the EU economy while making the market less risky and supporting financial stability.
At a time when bank lending is constrained, securitisation can boost credit and growth. It can help to free up banks’ balance sheets so that they can lend to households and businesses. The good functioning of and access to securitisation as a funding tool allows investors to diversify their investments and supports the real economy. It is for that purpose that effectively supervised securitisation is actively supported by the prudential authorities, including the Bank of England, which supported the EU initiative as playing
“an essential role in de-stigmatising European securitisation, helping the market to develop on a sustainable track”.
Let me turn now to the securitisation regulations. Although the EU rules themselves were agreed in 2017, the statutory instrument under consideration concerns empowering the regulators to effectively supervise the new securitisation rules that came into force at the start of the year. As the industry has prepared itself for the new regime, the Government are obliged to ensure that the new framework is operable. In essence, this SI simply gives effect to the directly applicable EU securitisation regulation and ensures that it is effective and enforceable in the UK.
The supervisory, investigative and sanctioning powers that this instrument delegates to the relevant competent authorities give effect to the EU framework. The hon. Lady mentioned the resourcing of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England. Both have been instrumental in the development of these regulations and are primed and ready to take on responsibility for them. The instrument fulfils the necessary obligations of the EU regulation in designating roles to the domestic regulators and provides them with the powers that they require to effectively supervise the market.
To summarise, the Government believe that this instrument is needed to ensure that the new securitisation regulatory regime works effectively. This will support a sound and transparent securitisation market in the UK, bringing real benefits to investment, jobs and growth while enhancing long-term financial stability. The whole purpose of the EU regulation is to address the challenges of the past and to ensure that mistakes prior to the financial crisis in respect of securitisation are not repeated by keeping the measures simple in form and more transparent. The proposal to revoke the instrument would only endanger that and disrupt the market as supervisors would not be able to enforce infringements to the rules that seek to better regulate the market.
The hon. Lady raised a number of points. I have clarified that this measure is not related to a no-deal situation. A point was made about the amendment to primary legislation and the fact that criminal offences already on the statute book will be affected. Although the EU regulation is directly applicable, the Securitisation Regulations 2018 make changes to UK law to ensure that EU regulations are fully effective and enforceable in the UK. The power under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 makes it possible to give effect in national law to measures in EU law by secondary or delegated legislation such as statutory instruments. Importantly, such secondary legislation can amend an Act of Parliament—section 2(4)—as the delegated legislative power includes the power to make such provisions as might be made by an Act of Parliament. So the instrument applies and modifies certain provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and other UK legislation both to create the new supervisory, investigative and sanctioning powers required by the EU regulation and to ensure that UK legislation is compatible with EU regulation, including applying and/or modifying necessary offences pursuant to sections 398 and 177 of the 2000 Act. This instrument allows an approach consistent with existing enforcement regimes elsewhere in the sector and with other financial services implementing SIs.
The hon. Lady referred to preferential treatment of capital for banks and risk retention and needing to have skin in the game. These rules are derived directly from international standards, which are set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions. There is no attempt to develop some bespoke UK regime. These measures are completely consistent, which has been acknowledged during the significant scrutiny process to which they have already been subject. The hon. Lady also mentioned the CMA. The CMA was not designated as it does not have a role to play under the EU regulation.
I think that I have dealt with the points that have been raised. These are straightforward regulations that give effect to the directly applicable EU securitisation regulation. When Sub-Committee A of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at these regulations on 17 December, it cleared them without comment. This is an attempt to update the regulations appropriately to give more confidence in the markets. I hope that the House will join together in support of the continued application of this instrument, and to oppose the motion to revoke it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This debate is so well subscribed that I was not sure whether I would be called, so I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak. It is excellent to have the opportunity to talk about a statutory instrument on the Floor of the House, given that we tend to be relegated to the Committee Corridor. It is also delightful to see two Government Ministers on the Front Bench, as we only have the pleasure of one in Delegated Legislation Committees.
The case has been put excellently by the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. I want to talk about a few concerns that the Scottish National Party has about the regulations as drafted, and the reasons why the Labour party prayed against them. The hon. Member for Oxford East made the case that, although this is not an EU exit statutory instrument, its aims clash with the aims of the EU exit SI on securitisation. It is quite confusing for the House at this time to be dealing with the in-flight regulations coming from the EU, as well as the EU exit ones. The issues around Henry VIII powers are incredibly important and form the core of our concerns.
The Minister mentioned the consultation. I would guess that the 150 submissions were from an EU-wide basis, rather than a UK-wide one. In fact, it seems unusual for there to be that number of submissions on pretty much anything. Given the number of SIs that receive no formal submissions, 150 seems like a significant number. However, if that is the case, I am quite happy to retract those comments.
The Minister’s comments on the consultation and the responses to it were very useful, but it was unfortunate that this information was not included in the explanatory memorandum. The explanatory memorandums that we normally see for SIs, particularly those dealing with EU exit, generally do not say that there has been consultation—and we generally criticise the Government for that—but they do usually say that there has been consultation with the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Bank of England or whichever authorities are relevant. However, the explanatory memorandum for this SI does not even say that that has happened. It is particularly concerning that, even if there were consultation on how the legislation was written, there has not been one on the implementation of the legislation as it is written into UK law and how it will be taken forward in this place.
My other concern is about the authority given to the FCA and the PRA. I have raised this concern recently, particularly in relation to the Bank of England. It seems that the Government are changing the powers that these organisations have, piece by piece, without any kind of overall strategy. It would be sensible for the Government to bring forward a White Paper or some sort of document on how they envisage the powers of the FCA and the Bank of England operating in future years. It seems that the Government are making policy changes by SI when they should actually be coming forward with an overarching position regarding how they see both the policy and the powers of the Bank of England, the FCA and the PRA in the future. When they make these piecemeal changes, we end up with organisations that have to deal with powers that are not joined up in any way because there is no joined-up approach.
It seems to me, from conversations that I have had with the Minister, or possibly the Financial Secretary, on the amount of resource that the FCA has that this House has been giving it quite a lot of additional work and obligations in recent times. While I am not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, the way that it has been done has not been helpful. My understanding, with regard to the FCA’s requirement for resource in terms of spend, is that it will come to this House and request additional money if it has additional duties that it needs to carry out. Given that the Government are increasing the scope of and requirements on the FCA in taking action to monitor things and to have obligations in various places, has the Minister had an overall look at what its budget and powers will look like in future years? If not, it will be very difficult for it to say to this House how much money it is going to require in order to adequately ensure that it is fulfilling all the obligations that have been given to it by this House.
My main concerns were around the issue of consultation, particularly the fact that, as it says in the explanatory memorandum, consultation has not been undertaken on the implementation of this EU law within UK law, as well as the piecemeal nature of the way in which the Government are coming forward with this. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to clarify, or give us some idea of, the Government’s direction of travel and say that there will be some sort of policy paper on these powers. It was particularly concerning that the Bank of England’s powers were just extended without any sort of policy alongside that. We are regularly seeing the FCA’s powers being changed.
It would be really helpful for this House, and we would be much less likely to raise concerns, if we had an idea of where the Government’s decision making was going. We might disagree, but we would be less likely to raise these concerns about every single SI. I am sure that the Minister is absolutely fed up with us raising exactly the same things on these occasions and having to give exactly the same answer, which generally does not help us. I have not generally taken part in SI debates on the Floor of the House, so I am not sure whether the Minister is going to wind up, as is normal. I hope that he does, so that he can answer some of these points.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).
Not everyone appreciates the role that securitisation of loans and debts played in the financial crash of 2008, but it was a substantial role, with devastating consequences. To give some context, in the years prior to 2008, a calamitous decision was taken by executives in large US-based international banks to securitise sub-prime mortgages, which were mortgages given to people who had virtually no way of paying them back. Because of predatory lending, the number of these sub-prime mortgages continued to rise. They were then pooled together with other loans and debts and packaged as a financial product in the form of mortgage-backed securities that received triple A ratings from the credit rating companies.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is surely arguing that sub-prime lending was mismanaged rather than securitisation itself. Do I understand him correctly, or is he suggesting that securitisation was the problem?
Bambos Charalambous
It was both. It was the sub-prime lending and it was also the packaging of these products into securitisation with other, better products that were then triple A rated.
Mr Jayawardena
But is it not true that securitisation is really helpful in recycling capital, thereby providing investors with a stream of income that is useful to them and allowing responsible financial institutions to direct their capital at new people who want, for example, to borrow money to buy a home?
Bambos Charalambous
If done properly, there is benefit in securitisation, but it was not done properly in the United States, and therefore we need to take extra precautions now to ensure that it is done properly.
Mr Jayawardena
The hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way again. I want to unpick that a little further, because it is helpful. Can he confirm that securitisation is a good way of managing risk across a portfolio of loans, so that those with worse credit ratings can be properly and openly matched up with those with better credit ratings, to ensure that investors have a blend that they can draw an income on in the long run and allow institutions to use the capital they have secured from investors to offer new products to new people?
Bambos Charalambous
But if credit rating companies do not give the correct ratings, as happened in the United States, it all falls apart. I am happy to carry on the conversation with the hon. Gentleman in Strangers’ afterwards.
There was a big investment in mortgage-backed securities, with many financial institutions choosing to invest in them because of their promised high rate of return. When people started defaulting on sub-prime mortgages, the mortgage-backed securities lost their value, and the financial institutions that had invested heavily in them became exposed and suffered catastrophic losses. Since that time, steps have been taken to ensure that we never again experience the shockwaves of those failing giant financial institutions and the aftermath. We need a robust system of dealing with the risk of any such exposure due to securitisation, and that requires primary legislation.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, what we have before us are ill-conceived regulations that do not address the whole picture, and these changes are being made without the House having a chance to properly scrutinise them. Let us be clear: these regulations are not required due to the fear of a no-deal Brexit. They have conveniently been slipped in by the Government, under not the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 but other legislation.
The regulations give responsibility to the Financial Conduct Authority to supervise the compliance of people involved in securitisation practices and allow it to impose certain penalties and take other steps to monitor securitisation. Such changes should not be made via secondary legislation. The complexity of these measures needs proper scrutiny. The very fact that the regulations change provisions in criminal law by preventing the FCA from instituting criminal proceedings for money laundering and insider dealing is a serious matter that is worthy of proper debate and scrutiny, which cannot be done via this debate. The regulations are wrong-headed, as schedule 1 amends primary legislation and transfers significant powers to the Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England.
Mr Jayawardena
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, even if we come from different starting points. Does he support the FCA having such a role but object to the principle of how this is being arrived at, or does he object to the FCA having this role? If not the FCA, who should it be?
Bambos Charalambous
Those are exactly the sort of points that should be made via a debate on primary, not secondary, legislation.
Bambos Charalambous
I will not give way again, as I am almost at the end of my contribution.
These are important changes that Parliament needs to get right, due to the dire consequences of what went wrong in the past. These measures are opaque, unconstitutional and lacking in proper scrutiny. I invite the Government to withdraw the regulations and introduce primary legislation, to allow thorough and proper scrutiny to take place. Without such assurances, I will vote for the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and against the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I beg your pardon. If the Minister would like to respond, and it is the wish of the House that he should do so, he may.
John Glen
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel it is appropriate for me to respond to the remarks of the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).
The Treasury has not undertaken a formal consultation on this SI, as the changes to domestic legislation required are minor, and the enforcement approach taken is in line with existing enforcement regimes in the financial services sector. We have worked closely with the FCA and the PRA throughout.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made some remarks about the resourcing of the FCA. It has additional resources through the onshoring programme, but this SI has nothing to do with that. This is a business-as-usual SI that would have happened anyway. There was certainly no attempt to slip it in amidst all the others that were taken through Committee. It was a consequence of these regulations being taken through the scrutiny process. I can confirm that there were 120 responses from across the EU as a whole in 2015 to the Commission’s proposals, which were then iterated over the two years before they were approved.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said about the aspirations of the regulations underlying this SI. This will bring in more stringent underwriting criteria for mortgage and credit granting. It will overhaul the supervision of credit rating agencies. We have updated international standards on the amount of capital that banks need to hold against securitisations. It responds directly to the work of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions. The process of consultation that led to the regulations being agreed in this House and through the Commission has lasted two years, from 2015 to 2017, and this SI is simply implementing them.
In conclusion, I believe that the securitisation regulations will enable the FCA and the PRA to supervise the new framework for securitisations agreed in the EU, which introduces stricter standards and makes securitisations simpler and more transparent.
Kirsty Blackman
On the point about the powers of the FCA and the changes that are being made to it—I am not suggesting that he is trying to slip out this particular one, but there do seem to have been various changes along the way—is it likely that the Government will come forward with something explaining how they expect the FCA to look in future and how we will get to that point?
John Glen
There are two or three things going on. There are 53 financial services SIs going through Committee in connection with no-deal preparations, which is certainly an additional burden on the FCA, and it has had the resources for that. The hon Lady asked about the Government’s holistic view of the role of the FCA. It is subject to a periodic review, having been formed under the legislation of five or six years ago, and that will happen in due course. We hope there will be more financial services legislation in future Sessions.
This instrument is necessary to enable the regulations to take effect. I hope that the House has found this afternoon’s debate on this matter informative and will be able to join me in opposing the motion.
Anneliese Dodds
If I may, I will start my remarks with a brief observation. Far too often in this House, I have heard hon. Members suggest that the financial crisis was somehow the result of the then Government’s policies. I am very pleased to have heard the opposite from the Minister today. In fact, it was the correct interpretation of what precipitated the global financial crisis, which did indeed, as he intimated, begin with the sub-prime mortgage collapses in the United States and then spread through the financial system, particularly through the use of complex financial instruments.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very happy for the Minister to agree with what I am saying.
John Glen
I am very happy to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that the default rate for triple A rated bonds in the EU was 0.6%, while in the US it was 16%. The key point that the Conservatives have always wished to stress is that the spending profile from 2002 and 2007 massively compounded the difficulties we found ourselves in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. A short while ago, this was a very well behaved debate on very specific issues, but since the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), it seems to have become a very general and exciting debate. I know that Members are anticipating a Division, and they will be trying very hard to make up their minds on which side of the House they are going to vote, but they must listen to the hon. Lady.
Anneliese Dodds
I will not strain the House’s patience, but I fear that the Minister, who is normally very clear in his remarks, is mixing apples and pears. He mentioned credit rating in relation to sub-prime mortgage-related securities in the United States. There was a relationship with the US state in that case, because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but there was not a connection between that process and the British state. I fear that there was a little bit of confusion there.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Perhaps we can clear up the mystery of whose fault it was, because the previous Chancellor said that it was not the fault of the Labour Government at all.
Anneliese Dodds
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important, pertinent and brief point.
Mr Jayawardena
I wonder whether, on reflection, the hon. Lady thinks that the former regulatory structure under the Financial Services Authority was not fulfilling its duties, that it was right to break it up between the PRA and the FCA, and that that resulted in an improvement in regulation.
Anneliese Dodds
The overall regulatory structure for the financial services industry is surely not what we are talking about in this debate. We are talking specifically about the regulation of securitisation. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that he was trying to make a point about the lack of stringent regulation at the time of the financial crisis. I remind all Members that it was, of course, the Conservatives who urged the then Government to deregulate further and to remove regulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) set out the involvement of securitisation in the financial crisis very clearly. To respond briefly to the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), building on what my hon. Friend said, there has been a wide-ranging debate about whether it is appropriate to encourage additional securitisation, of which he may be aware. Of course, securitisation facilitates additional leverage, beyond what would already be there, because it makes liquid assets that are not already liquid. That may be appropriate in some contexts, but it can lead to inappropriate leveraging, particularly when it is conducted in a complex and opaque way, as arguably was the case during the financial crisis. It is surely appropriate, therefore, that we question any new regulations that apply to securitisation in this House, as we have done in this debate.
I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks. However, I regret that he failed to respond to my detailed comments about the manner in which the EU regulation has been transposed. Our complaint is not necessarily with the overall framework, which, as he rightly intimated, came from the Basel framework through IOSCO and, latterly, the EU. The point is that the process has not been entirely without controversy. As a result, the decisions that the Government make about how to implement the framework are potentially delicate, as was underlined rightly by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).
The Minister said that the statutory instrument is a simple empowerment of the FCA. However, I referred in my remarks to how the regulations disapply elements of existing legislation, including those relating to offences under the purview of the Competition and Markets Authority and to insider dealing. He did not make it clear why that was necessary. He said that the measures would make our statute book consistent with offences in other countries in respect of complex securitisation and so on. He did not indicate whether they were consistent with existing offences on the UK statute book. That, surely, is what is at issue.
For all those reasons, we will press the motion of revocation to a vote.
Question put.
Communities: Charities and Volunteers
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Mims Davies)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered connecting communities by supporting charities and volunteers.
I am delighted that the House has this opportunity to discuss a subject so close to the nation’s heart: charities and volunteers. I am sure that everyone across the House will agree that these incredible people and organisations are the bold, brave, beating heart of our communities. And they are not alone. They work alongside the social enterprises, mutuals, community groups and socially responsible businesses that help to make up our civil society.
This country’s civil society is a force to be reckoned with. It has a proud heritage and is admired across the globe. It is everything from a voice for the voiceless to an incubator for innovation. It provides a space for us to display the very best of ourselves and a desire to help and support others. We all know of superhuman efforts that people have made in our constituencies and communities on behalf of charities—running, skydiving, sponsored swims, sponsored silences, with groups, individuals and children all raising millions, thousands or hundreds of pounds for causes they care about.
Only a few years ago, the eyes of the world were on London for the Paralympic and Olympic games. People were amazed by the athletic achievement, but what also made an impact on millions of people were those who came from our shores: our volunteers, the games makers, selflessly giving their time, energy and expertise so that others could have a brighter and better future and an enjoyable time.
We will see that again: with Birmingham 2022, the Commonwealth games, on the horizon, we have a chance to do it all again. Our experience, in London 2012 and beyond, has shown that we can create the right opportunities and environment for volunteers. They will come and step up to the challenge. That energy and that sense of momentum are vital if we are to continue to have a happier and healthier society.
What is the Government’s vision for civil society? Three elements are particularly important to me as we chart this new path. The first is the building of communities that are connected: tackling loneliness, helping people to feel attached to the places where they live and empowering people of all ages to build an even better society. The second is the establishment of a socially responsible business and finance sector that can act as an even greater force for good in our society and tackle, creatively, some of its most entrenched problems.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that charities should remain autonomous and should not be interfered with politically? I am greatly concerned about a charity in Morecambe that is undergoing that process at this moment.
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for referring to something that is happening in his community and may be a worry. The Charity Commission plays an important role in giving us comfort in that respect. It is an independent registrar, and it is the regulator of charities. The Government have recognised the demand for its services by granting it an extra £5 million a year to help our charities to be at their best. If my hon. Friend has any concerns about that specific case, I shall be happy to meet him.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Minister has rightly paid tribute to the hundreds of thousands of volunteers—long may they continue, and I pay tribute to the volunteers in my own constituency—but does she think it right that voluntary organisations, including charities such as the Trussell Trust and other food banks, are in effect replacing statutory services, although they are not equipped in the same way as a statutory service?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I have just one second to help the House? There are 17 speakers besides the Front Benchers, so may I encourage Members to try to help each other?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the importance of working across communities to support people in need. It is absolutely right for food banks to play their part, as they have for many decades through churches and local organisations. It is absolutely right that when people are in need, we have the opportunities and the partnerships to reach out to them.
I was talking about my vision, and the Government’s vision, for civil society. My third focus is on harnessing the energy of our young people and ensuring that there are plenty of opportunities for them to contribute in their communities. We want to create the conditions for a bold and bright future in which civil society is able to play an even greater role than it does today. Those themes are captured in our civil society strategy, published six months ago. I will briefly update the House on how we are pursuing our vision, but let me first thank my team of officials for their incredible outreach and dedication in supporting the sector and connecting communities through the strategy and for working so well.
The United Kingdom is already one of the most generous places in the world. Last year, the public donated £10.3 billion, and we have heard about millions of people who volunteered in our communities on each and every day of that year. Gift aid is now worth more than £1.2 billion to charities. Since 1990, when John Major was Prime Minister, £15 billion more has been given to good causes. That is the most successful charity tax relief in the world, and I am delighted that the Treasury has announced that the small donations gift aid limit has been raised to £30.
To support even more people giving back to their local area, I am today awarding a further £3 million to communities that need it most. Some £770,000 is going to six places to boost fundraising directly to local good causes. This investment will unlock funds for Britain’s most deprived communities, improving social mobility from Bristol to the Yorkshire coast. Some £2.3 million will go to 10 more places to put community at the heart of tackling local issues, from the Onion Collective in Somerset addressing skills gaps in the county to Lincoln’s hometown football club building on cohesion in the community. This investment in communities the length and breadth of the country will help even more people take action on the issues they care about most, including helping more volunteering, giving more money directly to local causes that people feel connected with in their community and supporting even more simple neighbourly acts, which can mean so much.
The Government are also helping connect communities by tackling loneliness. We are the first country in the world to have a Minister for loneliness, and I have had interest from Governments, businesses and charities around the globe—from places such as Canada, the USA, Australia, Sweden to Japan—that want to learn from us. To help tackle loneliness across England, we have secured £20 million of new grant funding for brilliant projects that are directly connecting communities, such as the Rural Coffee Caravan in Bury St Edmunds. The Care Leavers Association is also included; it is helping to develop a digital platform to connect care leavers of all ages so they can share, learn and support one another.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Can the Minister comment on any discussions she has had with the devolved Administrations specifically about loneliness?
Mims Davies
I have had conversations with the devolved Administrations on sport and connecting communities, but I have not directly had any on that issue. I am however very happy to take that up and co-operate with colleagues across the House to work with the devolved Administrations. As a Wales Minister, I was very aware that there are particular communities that we need to make sure Westminster and Whitehall are reaching.
We are breaking down barriers to volunteering for everyone, and we are focusing on those at risk of loneliness and looking to the long term to help those people who might want to get involved and who might need a new direction and feel isolated. I am backing that again today with cash: £250,000 for new funding to do exactly that.
When communities are facing their moment of greatest need, a connected community is what matters most. We saw that in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Local charities at the heart of the community stepped up, working in partnership with national organisations and emergency services to provide support for those in need. The public responded, too, by raising over £29 million. That was unprecedented, and it highlighted that we are at our very best when we come together and help each other. This community support was invaluable in helping the Government reach the Grenfell victims and their families quickly, and we will continue to support them. We are working with our experienced charity partners to further strengthen the response and be ready for any future emergencies.
How can business help our communities? Society’s needs are at the heart of good decision making. The private sector is a great force for good, and this is a chance to address society’s most pressing issues by encouraging innovative public services to work alongside private investors, socially responsible businesses and social enterprise. From tackling homelessness to helping young people reach their full potential, business and finance can and must play a crucial role.
Through social impact bonds, we are bringing together investors who want to make a difference with charities who have the expertise to make real change. This successful model is already having a positive impact on people and communities across the country. Charities such as St Mungo’s and Thames Reach are working with the most vulnerable rough sleepers in London to help them rebuild their lives. This social impact bond gives charities the financial safety net to do this important work, and I was struck by the passion and commitment of the staff I met last week and the results they have achieved. Since the project was launched in 2017, it has helped more than 150 people to find homes. We know that this funding model works, and that is why we are investing £80 million through the life chances fund to give more support to social impact bonds that create people-focused results. People matter, and we are delivering for them.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I worked on social impact bonds prior to entering this place. One of the big barriers that social enterprises face in drawing down social impact bonds is the lack of expertise in unlocking these complex instruments. What support will there be within the fund to ensure that that money can be drawn down by social enterprises?
Mims Davies
In my new role in this Department, I have found nothing but complete expertise to absolutely make this work. If the hon. Gentleman would like to raise a particular issue relating to his experience, I would be happy to hear from him directly.
There is more that we can do to help vulnerable people across the country. We are working with the banks and the building societies to unlock millions of pounds from dormant accounts. Instead of gathering dust, that money is being invested in helping our young people into employment and in tackling problem debt. In 2018 alone, £330 million of dormant assets funding was announced, and by 2020, the total distribution from dormant accounts will reach more than half a billion pounds. We will expand that scheme further to help more vulnerable people to benefit. This funding is changing lives for the better, with £90 million helping the most disadvantaged young people into employment and £55 million tackling problem debt. These initiatives are led by two independent organisations.
The Government want an economy that works for everyone in every part of their life. We are building a strong foundation for social impact investing, which is bringing more capital funding to social enterprises and charities in the UK, alongside traditional forms of funding for these organisations. I am mindful that lots of people want to speak, so I shall try to commute my remarks, but I want to get these key messages out. This works in practice. Since its launch in 2012, Big Society Capital has committed more than £520 million and leveraged more than £1.2 billion of additional co-investment into this space.
The Government are building on these successes and will be using a further £135 million from dormant accounts to help further charities and social enterprises. In addition, the Government have commissioned an advisory group, and the Prime Minister has personally asked for an industry-led implementation taskforce to deliver its recommendations. We also have an inclusive economy partnership, where we work with businesses such as O2, Landsec and Accenture and with social innovators to find practical solutions and to unlock the issues on the ground. We also have the This is Me programme, an inclusive workplace programme that focuses on mental health issues, and it is working with Landsec. This is an area in which we are working with business and the community to ensure that we can deliver on the ground.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is keen to speed on, but I should just like to say that she has already made a great impression on the House and on the sectors for which she is responsible in the time that she has been a Minister. In that spirit, will she take account of the rural areas such as the one I represent with regard to the things that she has said? They sometimes miss out, and it would be great if we found some means by which we could get her to come to places such as Lincolnshire to evangelise the case that she has made so powerfully today.
Mims Davies
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we should not forget our rural communities. We should work on this through the loneliness fund and the building connections fund, and I have more to say on that. I absolutely must speed on, but we need to make sure that we can cater for everyone across the land.
Moving on to youth opportunities, we need to harness the energy of young people and ensure that they have the opportunity to contribute to their local area. Volunteering provides young people with many of the skills that they will need later in life, and we are reaching out to the next generation to give them more opportunities to get involved.
Chris Elmore
I am extremely grateful to the Minister. Will she join me in paying tribute to the guide and scout movement, which does an enormous amount of work to try to ensure that young people understand the value of volunteering? It was refreshing to have scouts and guides approaching me as their local Member of Parliament to engage in National Democracy Week last year, so that they could begin to understand the wider process of democracy, which is linked to volunteering.
Mims Davies
The £5 million that the Government invested in creating new places for disadvantaged young people through uniformed youth groups, including Girlguiding and St John Ambulance, shows that we are committed. We also have half a million participants in the National Citizen Service. Working with the National Lottery Community Fund, we are investing another £80 million to help young people be active in their communities. We want our young people to have a voice in decision making, and we are creating two new groups to involve them.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
May I share one slight concern with the Minister? The public sector, including the health service, sometimes leans on effective charities a little too heavily. I was at Whitby and District Community Transport on Friday, and its worry is that the criteria for patient transport are changing, which is increasing pressure when it already has trouble getting enough volunteer drivers.
Mims Davies
It is right to work with local authorities and community groups so that we do not stop people volunteering. We should be actively encouraging people and giving them a chance to shine.
Finally, on youth services, the civil society strategy included a commitment to examine the guidance given to local authorities to provide appropriate local youth services. Through such efforts, we will help people to be more active in their communities, and we have promised a review.
Mims Davies
I am going to conclude, because I will be in trouble otherwise.
Despite the challenges in our growing and changing communities, as Members will know from their constituencies, civil society represents an opportunity to come together. The British people are the most generous, enterprising, imaginative and downright determined people in the world. As a Member of Parliament and a charity trustee and fundraiser, I know what it takes to be part of that, and I salute people across all constituencies, including Eastleigh, for what they do. I look forward to hearing from people about what is going on in their communities. Civil society is the best tool we have to connect our communities, to boost the economy and to make us happier, and we can work together to connect our communities further.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I listened with interest to the Minister’s warm words, but I suspect that we will hear much this afternoon about the gap between the rhetoric and the reality in the Government’s approach to civil society. Ever since they were elected, this Government’s method has been to underfund, undermine and sideline the sector at every opportunity. That is a tragedy, because civil society, including the charities, volunteers and community groups that are part of it, play a critical role in reconnecting the communities that this Government have divided.
There is a real mistrust of politics and politicians in our country, which is not surprising. A decade of austerity has ripped the heart out of communities and seen the destruction of shared community spaces. Good jobs have been lost to automation. Once thriving industrial towns have been left to decline. Inequality has grown wider while the economy has grown bigger, because a few at the top have grown richer at the expense of everyone else.
The politics that did all that needs to change. People want back control over their own lives. It is no longer enough for any group of politicians to stand up and tell people to trust them to have all the answers. Trust cannot be a one-way street. People will not trust politicians until politicians show that they trust people enough to open power up to them directly. We need a new politics that is big enough to meet the challenges of our age and responsive enough to meet the specific needs of every community.
At the heart of that are questions about power. Who has it? Who does not? How do we open it up to everyone? In this digital age, with a world that is changing so fast, it is clear that we cannot solve tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s thinking. That is where civil society comes in, because it offers a way for people to participate on their own terms. It connects communities so that they can exercise the power that lies latent within them. Community-led organisations are a key part of how we can make our system more responsive and more democratic by rebuilding politics around people and putting real power in people’s hands. It once felt like the Conservative party was on to that with its big society agenda, but it withered before our eyes into a crude attempt to replace paid professionals with unpaid volunteers. Now, the Conservatives do not talk about it at all.
Let us look at how much has vanished under this Government: 428 day centres, 1,000 children’s centres, 600 youth centres, 478 public libraries and countless lunch clubs, befriending services, community centres and voluntary groups. Those places where communities came together to act have all gone.
Rushanara Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that the cuts in youth services have been particularly devastating? Although the interventions to support the National Citizen Service have been welcomed in many areas, the reality is that the £1 billion or so that has been spent in that arena has not been matched by support in other areas to help young people get on to successor programmes, to meet their needs and to ensure that they have genuine opportunities to take part in positive activities, rather than get caught up in crime and other risks.
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, 600 youth centres have closed, and all the activities that could have gone on in them have been taken away. That is a crying shame.
Sadly, the Government have not finished with that agenda; there is worse to come. Their new so-called fair funding formula will remove deprivation levels from how funding is calculated. It will take even more away from the very poorest and will weaken the very communities in which the need to tackle poverty, youth crime and homelessness is greatest. Communities cannot organise, act or assert their voice if the Government keep ripping away the resources they need to do those very things.
The Government passed a lobbying Act that gags charities and prevents them from campaigning. Ministers individually have put gagging clauses in contracts to silence charities and prevent them from criticising their personal failures as Ministers. The Government have discouraged volunteers in the UK by not recognising their work for national insurance credits. They announced a plan for paid time off work for volunteering, but it fizzled out into absolutely nothing.
We are a month and a half away from Brexit, but the Government have still not told us how they will replace lost EU funding for charities or how the shared prosperity fund will work, despite the fact that the Opposition have been asking about it for months. The Minister trumpets the new funding—she did so this afternoon—but she fails to acknowledge that it is a tiny drop in the ocean, compared with the billions that the Government have cut. They can work out the huge financial value of what they have taken away, but the social value that they have destroyed is incalculable.
Despite the cuts and the Government’s failure to open up power, people are doing amazing things in their communities, and are stepping in to help the victims of Government funding cuts. I pay tribute to the food banks and homeless shelters which, in such a wealthy country, we should never have needed. There is a wonderful, rich, emerging practice of sharing, co-operating, collaborating and participating in this country. People’s ingenuity and the creativity in our communities cannot and will not be beaten back, but it is fragile. It needs support and protection. It is clear that the Conservatives will never offer that, but Labour will.
Alex Sobel
My local council for voluntary service, Voluntary Action Leeds, wrote to me. It said clearly that volunteering is not part of the benefits system, and that people are being sanctioned if they refuse to volunteer. That is not volunteering; it is forced labour. Universal credit is affecting the amount of time that people have to volunteer, so the Government’s own welfare policies are decimating the voluntary sector in this country.
Mr Reed
I agree. It is outrageous that the Government are actively penalising people for volunteering when we need to be encouraging volunteering. In particular, it helps people who are looking for work to develop the skills that they need to gain employment. I hope the Minister will take that away and look at it.
People are connecting in neighbourhoods and on social media to collaborate and bring about the change that we desperately need in this country. The digital revolution has opened up data, information and connectivity in the most extraordinary ways. It offers the potential to renew our democracy, making it more open, responsive and participative. This is the new civil society. It is a force for change of the most incredible potential, if only we had a Government with the vision and ambition to support it, like the very best Labour councils already do.
Barking and Dagenham’s Every One Every Day initiative has launched spaces and projects across the borough that bring people together in their neighbourhoods to solve the problems they face. It has dramatically increased participation, with projects as diverse as shared cooking, community composting, play streets and even a listening barber. It is a great example of asset-based community development—a model that is proving its power in communities across the country.
In my borough of Croydon, the Parchmore medical centre in Thornton Heath has spawned a network of more than 100 community-led projects that keep people healthier, and it has dramatically reduced the number of people who need to see a GP. There are sessions on healthy cooking for young families, mobility classes for older people and coffee mornings in the local pub, before it opens for customers, for people isolated in their homes. All of it is free, and all of it is run in and by the community. It has had an extraordinary impact on people’s wellbeing simply by getting neighbours to know each other better and to speak to each other.
Plymouth has set up the country’s biggest network of community energy co-ops to generate energy sustainably and plough the profits back into the local community. Stevenage is pioneering community budgeting, involving local community groups. Preston is leading on community wealth building by focusing council procurement on community organisations. In Lambeth, the council has set up, with the community, Black Thrive, a new social enterprise that gives the black community greater oversight of the mental health services that the community uses. In all these cases, existing or new community groups, charities and social enterprises have shown they have the power to transform lives. They open up decision making to the creativity and innovation that lies untapped in too many of our communities.
Sir John Hayes
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would consider the dichotomy at the heart of his argument—I used the word “argument” in the most generous spirit. The dichotomy is that he is arguing that this increase in digital communication is beneficial to community, but he must know that online shopping is destroying local shops, online media is destroying local newspapers and the virtual relationships he has described are not comparable with real relationships. Clearly, he is doubtful about his own relationships in Croydon, because he has already told us that people do not like politicians. Perhaps he should get out into the real world and leave the virtual world for a few minutes.
Mr Reed
What is destroying our high streets are the right hon. Gentleman’s Government’s business rate hikes.
The community and voluntary groups that are part of all of this innovation are pointing the way forward, not only to a better society, but to a new politics—not the centralised state or the marketised state, but the collaborative state, enabling an open, participative and hopeful approach. This new people-powered politics will help us find a way to tackle the great social ills of our time, one of which the Minister referred to; loneliness in this country has now reached epidemic proportions. Loneliness is the product of the breakdown of the family, the fragmentation of communities and the cuts that have taken away support services. The Local Government Association now points to an £8 billion funding shortfall in social care services, but we also see long working hours, low pay, investment and jobs deserts and the hollowing out of communities. All of that has contributed to this situation, but, sadly, no single piece of legislation can put a problem that complex right. The answers lie in our communities, in strengthening the bonds between people instead of atomising them, and in building up community assets instead of closing them down as the Government have done. Communities are already doing much, but if we had the courage to open up power and resources to them, they could do so much more.
Our country is at a crossroads. The Brexit debate has crystallised the deep divisions that separate us from each other and the anger that has driven it. We need to come back together, but that will not happen from the top down. We need a new, more open politics, one that is more participative, embracing the collaboration and kindness that all of us, as MPs, see in our constituencies. For that we need a Government who recognise and celebrate the central role of civil society and communities, and are ready to invest in them, not cut them to the bone. That is how we can genuinely let people take back control, so they can build the compassionate country we have the potential to become.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We will be starting with a six-minute limit. Hopefully, I will not have to lower it. Let us aim for that for everybody.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
It is a great joy to speak on this subject, to be an MP who has the privilege of visiting charity and voluntary groups whenever I can, and to represent a part of the country where community and voluntary groups are such a rich part of the local fabric of society. Following the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), I shall enjoy talking up the great work these groups do. The last thing they need is for us politicians to get more involved. We should allow them to get on and do the work that they do, while recognising that the state has the responsibility to create the environment that they need.
As I said, one of the joys of being an MP is to meet and support voluntary groups, which I do as much as I can but particularly at the beginning of the year. Since I was elected, I have been putting on Big Thank You events over a few weekends in January and February. They were inspired by the work of the loneliness commission and the sad loss of our colleague Jo Cox. Getting groups together to share their experiences and what they do is so valuable. I wish briefly to name-check a few groups that I met just a couple of weeks ago, to celebrate what they do and their great offer to my constituency. The events took place in the three main towns in my constituency—Penzance, Helston and St Ives—and are examples of how charities are connecting communities and addressing loneliness and isolation.
First, I hosted an event this year at Helston bowling club. When I met members of the club last year, they were so inspired by the opportunity to work with other charities that they started Saturday morning community bowling. They opened bowling up to the community, and now people can do indoor or short-mat bowling and outdoor bowling. Lots of people turn up—they do not always bowl; they drink tea and coffee and eat cake—and they have seen a large growth in members and numbers, just because they are able to offer some sense of community to people who are otherwise on their own.
I had the great joy of going to an event to meet the group that runs Tea Love and Cake, or TLC, which brings together large numbers of mainly older people. A lovely bunch of lady volunteers go around picking people up, bringing them into a community room in Marazion and entertaining them for the afternoon through various—dare I say—lightweight exercises, along with tea and cake. They came to an event and shared a bit about the incredible work they have done to encourage lonely people.
The St Ives community bus was funded by the Department for Transport, as has been the case for several other community organisations in my constituency. The volunteer drivers from the bus service talked about how they pick people up every day of the week, running them to and fro between different organisations and groups so that they can be part of the community in which they live.
I met some young mums who run a breastfeeding support group for mums who struggle in that area. It is a voluntary group that gets together to help other mums.
The Saturday Gang is a group of volunteers who bring together people with learning disabilities on a Saturday. Again, they have tea, cake and coffee. They help people with learning disabilities with some of the challenges they face.
The National Coastwatch Institution started in my constituency, and I was glad to meet its volunteers. There are huge numbers of well-organised volunteers who spend all the daylight hours, all year round, watching our coastline, keeping people safe and reporting it if people are at risk of getting in trouble. It is an amazing organisation that gives people the opportunity not only to have friendship and community but to do the vital job of keeping the people in the waters along our coastline safe.
Around the time of Parliament Week last year, I had the privilege of going to so many different groups over two or three weeks. The guiding and scouting group came along to the events and talked about their fantastic work to support young minds suffering from a bit of anxiety. That is a fantastic piece of work.
We are doing a really interesting piece of work by bringing together some of the groups I have mentioned to take from supermarkets food that is not out of date—it is perfectly okay—but surplus to requirements. They are processing that food into good, healthy, nutritious meals. The plan is to teach parents how to cook using raw materials, which is a skill that many of us have lost—including, I am afraid, myself. They provide vacuum-packed meals—fantastic, healthy food—that can be warmed through quickly. I do not know of anywhere else in the country that is doing this. They slice and freeze-dry bananas. If Members know anything about bananas, they will know that they do not freeze, but when they thaw these ones, they are exactly as they were when they cut them up. It is pretty impressive and I think they should patent the process.
Age Concern, a fantastic organisation across Cornwall, does a great job of connecting communities and providing some sensible ideas about how we can support older people at home and how we can help them avoid going into hospital. It highlights the fact that the state does not have all the answers—it should never have all the answers. The voluntary community does something that we cannot do, and we should encourage it, support it and give it the freedom to do a great job. I am so proud to be an MP of west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly where many, many people find fulfilment in volunteering, supporting each other and helping some of our most vulnerable people.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), who detailed some of the work that is going on in his community. Let me make a non-pecuniary declaration of interest: I was the national policy adviser for Volunteer Scotland, the national body for volunteering, before I came to this House. I have also worked for West Dunbartonshire Community and Volunteering Services—Members will know it as a CVS and volunteer centre—for over a decade.
I thank the Government for bringing forward this general debate today. I am sure that there are those in the Chamber who have been seeking such a debate for quite a long time. I commend the work of the all-party parliamentary group on charities and volunteering, of which I am a member. I see the redoubtable chair, the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), in their place. I do hope that, when they sum up, both Front-Bench speakers will pay tribute to the work both of that all-party group and of the chair who has been a doughty campaigner since coming to this House.
Although much of the policy framework for charities and volunteering is fully devolved to the Parliament of Scotland, there is a range of overlaps that needs to be highlighted so that Members can be aware of the distinct nature of charities in Scotland, the number of which, according to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, now stands at 24,466 in total.
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that these issues are devolved and rightly so, but where there are opportunities for co-operation across the United Kingdom, we should surely grasp them. Why, for example, is it not possible for young people in my constituency, because of a decision by the Scottish Government, to participate in the National Citizen Service? There is a demand for that in Scotland.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I will come on to answer that question at the end of my contribution. There is a big discussion to be had about the legislative process of the UK Government and a distinct understanding of what volunteering actually means, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point further on in the debate because he raises a very important point about the difference between volunteering and being told to do something. Volunteering is a free-will activity.
It is essential to understand that, as in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—although I do not see any Members from Northern Ireland in the Chamber—the vast majority of voluntary organisations are small, with no employees; they are founded, organised and able to connect communities solely through volunteers. As a sector, both charities and the many unincorporated voluntary organisations play a central role in the delivery of people-centred services and in ensuring that communities, through a whole host of avenues, are able to inform and shape our nations. We have already heard about how the sector informs participation and democracy.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a good point about the role of voluntary organisations. In the past year, two new food banks have opened in Inverness to cope with the demand caused by the failures of universal credit. Those volunteers are working not just there, but in initiatives such as the hungry lunches project at Inverness Cathedral and MFR Cash for Kids, which provides help and advice. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are not just providing help for people, but actually saving them?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I could not disagree, and that is replicated not just in Scotland, but across the whole UK.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), in Coventry we have volunteers who not only collect, but distribute, the food; and a lot of people are very thankful to them. Another issue is loneliness. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that every amount of pressure should be put on the BBC to revoke any plans it has to charge the licence fee to over-75s. Finally, there is another voluntary organisation in Coventry that is totally run by volunteers who help the blind using modern techniques. Has the hon. Gentleman come across anything like that in his constituency?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I could not disagree with the hon. Member on a range of matters, and I do not on the over-75s licence fee issue. It is incomprehensible to me why the BBC would even consider such a thing, given that social isolation is a profound issue across not only older age, but a whole gamut of ages. I may come to that point in a moment.
The right to form voluntary organisations—charities or unincorporated organisations—is a fundamental pillar of a modern, liberal democracy. Such organisations are founded on the lived experiences of communities, on geography, on choice and on need. Nevertheless, charity is no replacement for good government. Maybe that is what many have found with issues around food banks and services having to be replicated by volunteers.
The unincorporated organisations and charities challenge policy makers and Governments in general, campaigning on issues on conscience and locality. I think of the Women’s Aid organisations in my constituency, which—with the new local authority administration—are addressing specific targeted issues such as domestic abuse and violence, and access to services. They are also raising the matter of three-year funding strategies, rather than constantly having to come back to the local authority or Government Department year in, year out for the same type of funding scheme.
These organisations deliver public services in ways that are too numerous to mention, including by supporting people through drug addiction. This includes the Dumbarton Area Council on Alcohol in my constituency. Organisations such as Tullochan and Y Sort-It in West Dunbartonshire enhance the lives of young people through group activity and individual support. Importantly, the unincorporated organisations across all our constituencies run groups of all shapes and sizes, such as Clydebank’s Morison Memorial lunch club, which offers friendship and wholesome food every Thursday; I can testify—I am sure that Scottish Members will recognise this—that it has the best and finest tablet in Scotland.
Charities and voluntary organisations connect and enhance our communities socially and economically. In Scotland, the investment from the Scottish Government has again increased to £24.9 million, with additional resources and support from a range of other funding bodies and groups, such as local authorities and NHS boards. Indeed, voluntary organisations are seen as an essential part of shaping public service through community planning in each of the 32 councils of Scotland.
From a Scotland-wide perspective, the voluntary sector covers every facet of Scottish society, and I am grateful to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations for the following figures. There are over 45,000 voluntary organisations—on top of the charitable sector—in Scotland, employing more than 106,000 paid staff. That is 3.5% of Scotland’s workforce. The workforce is dominated by women, who make up 71% of it; this is significantly higher than in the public and private sectors. The sector also employs more people with disabilities than the public and private sectors. Over 1.3 million people in Scotland volunteer, and over 30% of women, people from rural communities and those aged 16 to 24 volunteer. There are over 250,000 charity trustees, many of whom will never actually see themselves as volunteers; and that is a clear point about many trustees and those involved in the governance process.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I see that the chair of the all-party parliamentary group and the Minister agree. It is a fundamental point that we need to reinforce.
The sector in Scotland has a combined turnover of £5.8 billion. For the record, that is higher than the whisky industry. Some 78% of charities in Scotland are locally based, and four out of five Scots used a third sector organisation last year.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
In my Falkirk constituency, I have the great privilege to support Strathcarron Hospice, which this month holds its Snowdrop appeal. Princess Anne is also a great supporter of the hospice. The volunteers who support this superb charity and many other organisations are appreciated, but I have looked at some of the salaries paid to the chief executives of national charities. Does my hon. Friend agree that that the salary of those at national charities should be capped?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I think that might be above my pay grade. However, I do believe that pay must be commensurate with the working activity undertaken. It is up to the board members of charities to make sure that they hold their staff, especially their senior staff, accountable in terms of the wages that they are paid.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the hospice movement. I have two hospices in my own constituency: St Margaret of Scotland, which is well known across the west of Scotland; and CHAS, or Children’s Hospices Across Scotland, which assists children who are terminally ill from all over the UK. They are to be commended for the sterling work that they do.
Although not perhaps enjoying the same attention and understanding as other sectors with regard to Brexit, the sector is no more or less immune to the uncertainties generated as a consequence of leaving the European Union. Alongside concerns about protecting human rights, participation in European networks and pan-European programmes, and the future workforce, the issue of funding is paramount. Over the 2014 to 2020 funding period, Scotland has secured €941 million in European structural investment fund money, a significant proportion of which was to be channelled to third sector organisations in a diverse range of communities. This funding enables third sector organisations to access funds under the following interventions: employability pipelines, social inclusion and poverty reduction, and growing the social economy. I believe that the UK Government are developing the UK shared prosperity fund as a successor fund to replace the ESIF when the UK leaves the European Union. Yet despite repeated promises of a consultation, the launch has been delayed several times. Therefore, charities are yet to have their say on how this fund will evolve and operate, and they have had no clarity on what it will fund, how it will be designed, who can access it, how much it will be worth, or who will manage it. I hope that the Minister will clarify issues around the consultation and inform the House of what progress will be made in this area.
The Minister referred to the Dormant Assets Commission, which was set up in March 2016, building on the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. It had the expanded objective of looking at a much wider range of financial assets such as life insurance, pension products and so on. The commission published its final report and a series of recommendations in 2017. It identified some £2 billion-worth of dormant assets that could be freed up and distributed to good causes, for want of a better term. This is considered to be a conservative estimate, much as the value of dormant accounts was undervalued. More assets will also fall dormant in the years ahead, meaning that the fund can deliver in perpetuity.
In 2011, the dormant accounts money was made subject to the Barnett formula and devolved nations were able to set their own spending priorities, with the Big Lottery Fund taking responsibility for distributing money through the Young Start programme, which aims to create opportunities for children and young people. I am sure that Members would hope and expect that the new fund will follow a similar model. However, there has been little detail available about how funding will be allocated and distributed. Future consultation will give the sector an opportunity to ensure that this money can be secured for good causes and successfully targeted to produce the best outcomes. Again, I hope that the Minister can clarify the situation.
The essential elements of voluntary organisations in connecting communities are those who, either individually or collectively, volunteer to run charities and voluntary organisations. In Scotland, this is even an essential element of the nation itself. For instance, as I am sure that Members on both sides of the House from Scottish constituencies will know, the national Church, while it has ministers, is a charitable organisation facilitated by volunteers. Like many other faith-based organisations, it is a cornerstone of national life. Its role in the distinct nature of the Scottish nation is volunteer-led. Yet for volunteering to flourish, we must recognise that it requires investment.
In its report “Volunteering, Health and Wellbeing”, Volunteer Scotland—the national body for volunteering—highlighted the substantial evidence to support the contribution of volunteering to policies where health and wellbeing has an important role to play. That includes key policy areas such as health, education, employment, young people, older people, criminal justice and community engagement. The Minister mentioned isolation and loneliness. Last year, the Scottish Government brought forward their first ever draft strategy, “A Connected Scotland: Our strategy for tackling social isolation and loneliness and building stronger social connections”, with an additional £1 million of investment, and that is only for the first two years.
Through those policy areas, we understand that volunteering is essential to healthy behaviours and improved daily life—critically, for those who are isolated due to a range of factors, from income to age—and it has the real benefit of allowing people to cope with illness. It is well evidenced that volunteering has a profound positive impact on all our mental health, and the work of so many local groups across these islands, including Stepping Stones in my constituency, is a testament to the positive impact of volunteering on our mental health.
Yet we face challenging volunteer geography across western society, with a decreasing number of people volunteering. Even in rural communities, where the number has been traditionally high, we are seeing a marked decrease. There is no simple answer to growing volunteering. Our societies are evolving, and as I said, there may be people who do not even recognise that they volunteer.
The Minister mentioned the London Olympics. There were also the Glasgow Commonwealth games, and in a few years the games will be in Birmingham. While large sporting events see spikes in volunteering, there is yet to be substantial evidence that that investment brings a long-term increase in volunteering.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) mentioned the National Citizen Service, an issue on which he and I disagree. For me, my party and the Government of Scotland, the call to have a National Citizen Service only detracts from investment in existing infrastructure in Scotland. There are many national youth organisations; the exact same type of organisation exists and is already funded. Rather than asking for a London-based system, we should look to the systems that already exist in Scotland, as a lot of work is being done by YouthLink Scotland and other organisations.
For me, big society is like Big Brother. It is a threat to individual and collective community action, undermining volunteering in its most basic and fundamental form. It is a society where we have, in the words of Robert Dahl,
“an effectively enforced right to form and join autonomous associations”,
rather than ones brought about by Government.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
My parents were dedicated to voluntary work. Whereas other children played cricket, as you did, Mr Deputy Speaker, or played mummies and daddies or shops, my sisters and I used to play “holding a meeting”, and it was invariably a charity meeting. So it is not a great surprise that, all my adult life, I have tried to work at least one day a week for charity. That has enabled me to move from charity to charity locally, helping to buy a bus for Leonard Cheshire and selling cushions for Fine Cell Work—good golly, that was difficult; nobody likes giving money to prisoners, apart from those involved in the criminal justice system. I also raised money for the urology department—try that, guys; a urology ball, anyone?
There are two things that I am most proud of. First, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), I set up NorPIP, as a founding trustee. Our by-line was “Two is too late”, which is not quite true, but it focused strongly on the attachment issues between parents who are struggling and their very young babies. Secondly, I set up the benefactors’ board for my local hospital trust. We described that as the icing on the cake. What we were adding to the NHS, which we all really supported, were the bits that the NHS could not fund, such as new bits of equipment that it could not take the extra leap to fund, nice duvet covers for the children and equipment for the hospital school. I am proud to have set up that fund and chaired it for many years. I am also proud that my predecessor’s wife took it over when I was elected to this place. She is a great lady, and he is a great man. He has had a knock-back in his charitable experiences today as Age Friendly Banbury has not received the funding it went for, but I know that will not set him back.
I am trying to say that charity work is a great background for someone to be a local MP. It means they know people locally—leant-in people locally—and they know what is going on in their local area. It is of course a great background for everybody. As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said, it is really good for everybody’s mental health to volunteer. When our son died, my work for Save the Baby helped me to get back to playing a part in society. We can get positive things, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, out of tragedy.
To put it politely, volunteers are so much more powerful and good, at fundraising in particular, than paid charity workers. People give money to people. We know that, and we have proved it time and again.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
May I commend two organisations—the Lions and Rotary—to my hon. Friend? I am lucky in my constituency to have Burton Rotary and Uttoxeter Lions. Both organisations raise tens of thousands for good causes in my constituency and, I am sure, across the country. Does she agree that those organisations play a huge role in our communities?
Victoria Prentis
I do. Those are fabulous local groups, and we are lucky enough to have them in my area too. My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to them.
We are not just talking about formal charities today. I would like to tell the Chamber about Tony, my next-door neighbour. He not only takes my children to the bus, reduces the local rat population, uploads new photos on the village website, takes other families’ dogs for walks, and opens and checks the church daily, but he does all this by 8.30 every morning. We all know people like this and, quite frankly, we want to grow into such people. It is great that, as the Minister told us earlier, 30% of adults are doing some volunteering. I would like her to measure not just the money that is given, but the time that is spent by stalwarts of our communities, such as Tony, who do so much for us.
I could not let such an opportunity pass without mentioning Singing for Syrians, which I set up soon after my election in 2015. I heard on the radio that Syrian doctors were working unpaid, and I thought we would have a bit of a whip round. Everybody I asked said yes and tried to help. It is my dream charity. We encourage people to do the work for us and to do their own thing—inspired slightly, I must say, by the Macmillan annual coffee morning. Everybody can get involved in the singing, or in eating at the fabulous Syrian supper clubs. This year, our flagship will be on 10 December in St Margaret’s, and a marvellous cross-party choir of MPs will be taking part. Others do the work; we just receive and distribute the money, and there are events all over the country.
We need the money more than ever. The Hands Up Foundation, which we fund, is one of the very few charities still donating into northern Syria, as the big players have pulled out. Our prosthetic limb clinic was flooded two weeks ago—all the equipment is kept in the basement to protect it from aerial bombardment—and we are trying to raise £10,000 to re-home the limb clinic, which provides such essential services to those who have lost limbs in the war. We are still about £4,000 short of that target, so if anybody would like to give me a cheque afterwards, it would be gratefully received. I encourage everybody present in the Chamber, perhaps if there is a boring moment later, to google “Singing for Syrians” and watch our very short clip, “Sing like they can hear us!” If they have three minutes and want a good laugh, they can google, “Singing for Syrians Flashmob” in Marylebone station, which is fantastic.
I would like to thank everybody who volunteers for all our local and national charities. I especially want to thank those who volunteer in north Oxfordshire. I am particularly proud that we have national bases locally for the Child Brain Injury Trust and for Adoption UK. I am inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who has a “Volunteering Week”, during which it appears that he does a lot of gardening. I am going to do “Victoria Volunteers” from 23 September for a week, when I am looking forward to cooking for Banbury Young Homelessness Project, eating cake at Restore, making tea at the Royal Voluntary Service and reading to children with the indomitable women of ARCh—Assisted Reading for Children—which is just a fantastic organisation. If I am allowed to, I will also do some volunteer driving for the people who volunteer out of the citizens advice bureau, but they may not want me and I may not pass the check. It is fantastic what is done by people all around our country, and I cannot praise them highly enough. I thank the Minister for all she does.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who spoke so passionately.
There is much that makes me proud of the communities I represent across Barnsley East, especially our local charities and community groups, many of which I have had the privilege to visit in recent weeks.
Everyone who cares for a loved one with dementia knows of the immense emotional strain the condition imposes on those who live with it and those who care for them. I know that I speak for many people across Barnsley when I thank BIADS—Barnsley Independent Alzheimer’s and Dementia Support—and Butterflies, two fantastic community groups that provide outstanding support, help and comfort for those living with dementia in our community.
I cannot deny the sense of shame I feel in telling the House that today, in 21st century Britain, after years of austerity, there are children going hungry and families—many of them in employment—who are unable to put food on the table without resorting to a local food bank. Our community came together 30 years ago to feed the families of men who had no option but to go on strike to defend their industry and their way of life. Again, our community is coming together to feed families who face the most desperate conditions because of universal credit, the low-wage insecure economy and wider austerity. I have nothing but praise for our food banks—for the volunteers who give their time and their heart to run them, and for the generosity of all those who donate.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does she agree that the Trussell Trust provides fantastic leadership with its food banks across the country, and that very often it is people from faith groups, particularly churches and chapels, who do so much to support this really important work?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and one that I was about to touch on.
In the coming school holidays, food banks will again be busy. I cannot help but ask: surely it must be possible to create a society where children do not go hungry.
Just as our food banks battle want, our churches battle the scandal of homelessness. A man died sleeping on our streets last year, simply because he had nowhere to live. The homelessness he experienced is a situation that far too many people face. I praise the Barnsley Churches Drop-In, which provides support to those who are sadly homeless. But again I say: it does not have to be like this.
Every time I visit charities and community groups, I see the amazing work they do and the real difference they make in our community, but there is another side to the story. Many of our brilliant local charities and community groups in Barnsley have been affected by this Government’s austerity since 2010. Cuts to public services have forced them to take on extra work and have put them under increasing pressure. Cuts amounting to 40% make Barnsley Council the worst affected in the country and have left it struggling to support those local charities and community groups.
What the Government do not seem to understand is that cuts have consequences. Luminar, a Barnsley charity where volunteers helped children and families affected by domestic violence, has been forced to close. The Barnsley Bereavement Support Service, which supports those struggling with the shock of losing someone close to them, is short of funding and faces closure. That is shameful.
Despite the many difficulties, so many fantastic groups—far more than I can mention here today—continue to support local people. They do so thanks to the efforts of the brilliant volunteers who work for them. They are passionate, determined and dedicated to helping others. They give so much of themselves in supporting our community. It is time that the Government supported them and gave them the proper funding that they need and deserve.
On one visit to a local community group, I saw a sign that, more than anything else, sums up the local volunteers in my constituency. It simply said, “Volunteers are not paid, not because they are worthless, but because they are priceless.” I could not have put it better myself.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Unfortunately, I have to take the time limit down to five minutes to get everybody in.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Everybody here has interests to declare, so I shall rattle quickly through mine. I may mention some of these organisations: I am a recently retired trustee of the Gloucestershire Community Foundation; the current chair of the Gloucester History Trust; a joint patron of the charity HaVinG a Voice in Gloucester, which helps the homeless on to pathways; and a joint patron of the Discover DeCrypt project at St Mary de Crypt church and school. Every year, I volunteer with Gloucestershire Royal Hospital.
Today is a very good time for this debate and I congratulate the Minister on her introduction to it. She is quite right to focus on what is such a big part of such a big society. She is quite right to say that volunteers and charities are at the heart of every community in all our constituencies, and she is inspired to highlight some of the new awards that have been given to projects about deprivation and community. I would have loved to have seen at least one of those come the way of Gloucester, but there may be opportunities for that shortly. The more she is able to do on this front, with the help of the Chancellor, the more difference it will make to local pride, local people and local potential. Let me share some thoughts from almost 12 years of focus on community and its role in the regeneration of Gloucester.
The first point is that pride matters hugely. England and Britain’s characteristics include an attractive self-deprecation and a not always so attractive approach to not appreciating ourselves, our cities, our towns and villages enough. How do we measure pride and what does it mean? There is no index, but there are various indicators we can use. I often use Centre for Cities’ research as a snapshot of how our city is doing relative to others. The employment rate immediately tells me that Gloucester is working. We have the fourth-best employment rate of any city in the nation. Then there are the less tangible things, such as the amount of volunteering.
Can any of us truly say that we know how many people are volunteering and how many hours they give to our city or our county? It is very hard to tell, but when we look at the different ingredients it is there for us to see. For example, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital has over 400 volunteers, not including the 30-plus in the chaplain’s office. The Gloucester Civic Trust has hundreds of volunteers who play a crucial role on Gloucester Day and on heritage open days, which are one of those wonderful things that have grown and grown.
We then have the community groups themselves. The Redwell Centre in Matson is a fantastic success, with programmes, projects and activities for everybody from the very young to the very old, including the cross-faith and denomination Together in Matson. There are community groups, such as Chit Chat within St James’s church in Quedgeley, which involve the community. There are the festivals, which all our communities have. I would like to talk about the Gloucester History Festival, which I started eight years ago and which now has 24,000 visitors.
We have groups who help the homeless and rough sleepers. The George Whitefield Centre incorporates Gloucestershire care services, the Gloucester City Mission and the food bank, which has lots of volunteers. It is not just Christian charities either. Islamic groups in Gloucester are raising funds for good causes. There are immigrants who are giving back to the society that has looked after them since they left their own country. I want to single out Babu Odedra and Ash Chavda. They own the Olympus Theatre, where there is a great project to regenerate culture and drama in the heart of Barton in Gloucester. There are the Rotary Clubs. We now get all the Rotary Clubs in Gloucester together and we have our community awards every year, with some £10,000 going to about 20 different groups. These little things matter and it is a way for charities to highlight what they are doing to a group of people who are very charitably minded. The Barnwood Trust nearby, a mental health-focused charity, now interprets mental health in a much wider way. There are lots of things that help. The Gloucester Pride festival every year attracts many times the numbers it had when it started, as does the Lantern festival, which ends up at the cathedral.
What works? What transforms communities and cities? I think often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) mentioned, out of sadness can come determination to change. Charities are formed from disasters in families, such as: the Hollie Gazzard Trust which is about to celebrate its fifth anniversary; Charlie’s Cancer Support group; and the Nelson Trust, which does great things for women in trouble. All of these things boost pride. Success breeds confidence and success. Buildings help. As Churchill said, we shape buildings and then they shape us. Above all, it is about the potential in our societies and things that are good for mental health. The role of volunteering and charities is absolutely critical.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I am really pleased to speak in this debate and to talk about my experience of 23 years both as a volunteer at and manager of a local citizens advice bureau. People volunteer for many different reasons. I volunteered because I was at home with a young baby, and I wanted to get out and do something else other than sing “The Wheels on the Bus” for a while. I was really glad I did, because when I was left alone with that baby, I realised that CAB was in my blood and I wanted to stay there, and I got a paid job there.
Volunteers include young people looking for work or people who are retired. There are many different roles within even one charity, with many different demands—advice, reception, admin, media, specialisms, social policy and trustees—and it is the job of the manager or the volunteer co-ordinator to ensure that everyone is in the right role and that they are trained, supervised and reviewed to check that we meet their aims and that they meet the organisation’s aims. They are perhaps even given targets for improvement and sometimes even brought to recognise that they are perhaps no longer in the right place and could move on. It is obvious that volunteers take considerable management to provide a service within the charity’s aims. Volunteers give their time freely; they are not free.
We had 50 volunteers and 29 paid staff working full time, with a full-time volunteer co-ordinator, as well as the chief executive officer and deputy. Volunteers do a great job. They have a real stake in their organisation, but sometimes, as demands change, they need taking through the change process. This perhaps needs someone to take them through the process differently than they would with paid staff. I would never have wanted to change to having all paid staff. There is a value in the diversity of volunteers—there are people who are rooted in their communities, who really want to give their time. Sometimes I used to find that people wanted me to give far too much time, wanting me to stay till 7 o’clock every night when my daughter needed putting to bed, but that was my problem.
There have been changes in the charity environment. Many charities now have to be business-focused, particularly those providing public services, and they are moving to having contracts, not grants. I think that is a good thing, as long as the key performance indicators are right and are not just focused on outputs, and the charity looks at its charitable objectives and does not just go for anything. That is where the trustee board comes in. There is a need for a mix of specialist and local skills in accounting, business planning, and grievance and disciplinary procedures. As charities grow, they need to regularly reassess their trustee board, just as much as their management. They need to check that it has the skills to manage the chief executive—I have to say that as a chief exec, that was not always an easy job.
Citizens Advice is a shining example of a charity that uses the experience gained on the ground in local communities to try to effect national change through social policy work. We see the unintended effect of legislation and must be able to speak out. That is not party political—heaven knows, I have criticised every Government since 1986.
I want to move on to my local community and the charities there. Not all charities need to be big; many start from local need. I will mention a couple. Embrace is a user-led charity for people with disabilities. To me, that exemplifies the importance of users being involved and empowering people. It is about asking, “What do they want?” rather than asking them just to take what they are given. There is also the Abram Ward community co-operative, which has projects combating loneliness by bringing young and old together to make items such as go-carts. Wigan Council has a deal whereby it works with charities and community groups and provides small grants and trains volunteers. It has really invigorated the local community so that people feel like a community, not just a collection of individuals who happen to live near one another.
I would not be here today without having volunteered at my local CAB. It led to a career spanning 23 years. That was not my intention when I walked through the door into the manager’s office at Sale CAB. I worked with volunteers and enjoyed and valued their commitment, diversity and humour. I feel that it has really enriched my life, and I hope that it has contributed to improving the lives of those in the local community.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
We in this House are all grateful for the dedication of charities and volunteers in our constituencies and impressed by their achievements. As the Government’s civil society strategy states, global Britain is rooted in local Britain, and I am pleased to say that my constituency has many residents groups, community charities and local branches of national charities. I want to place on the record my thanks for the incredible work done by all volunteers in our communities.
Celebrating civil society is a recognition that it is not good enough to expect the state, whether national or local government, to do everything. Far too often in the past, it has fallen to organisations such as city councils to be responsible for everything, when in reality they cannot be, and even if they could, it would disempower communities. Supporting charities and volunteers is a recognition that organisations outside the state are often better able to tackle certain challenges and provide certain social goods. What matters is that these parts, across public, private and civil society, work together to create something greater than their sum.
Over the summer, I was pleased to host funding workshops at Blurton community hub, in my constituency, with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the People’s Postcode Lottery. Both events were well attended by community and charitable organisations, and I hope that from them we will see more successful bids and the investment we need in our local communities.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council recently empowered communities by creating a community investment fund focused on investing in equipment and assets with a longer-term impact. Since it started two years ago, £1.7 million has been invested, with a further £1.3 million to be announced soon. The council also recently set up the Potto Lotto, a Potteries-based lottery, where 60% of the ticket price goes to local charities and players can nominate a good cause to fund. This shows the proactive and innovative approach being taken in partnership locally that is empowering communities and charities to deliver great returns.
Another excellent local example of joint working is the North Staffordshire Community Rail Partnership, which promotes the north Staffordshire line—for example, by helping to create more welcoming station environments for passengers, including at Longton in my constituency. I have no doubt that its efforts over the past decade have helped to double local rail usage, which I fully expect the new franchisee to reflect with improvements on the line. That highly localised work at Longton has had a knock-on effect in the form of a bronze medal at the Britain in Bloom festival in the first year of its taking part, thanks to the hard work of volunteers at Longton Community Partnership.
All this contributes to much-needed footfall, as do the charity shops that occupy what would otherwise be empty premises on our high streets. Some people complain about the number of charity shops, but it is always better that these shops are occupied, and of course the future high streets fund will help further. Local charities, such as Dougie Mac and Bethel church, are putting funding straight back into the local area. Furthermore, following the successes of Longton and Blurton at Britain in Bloom, it is fantastic to see the local community in Fenton coming forward with a Fenton in Flower competition.
Many local sports clubs rely almost entirely on volunteers. I think of clubs such as Hanford, Meakins Fenton, Longton and Hem Heath cricket clubs, Longton and Trentham rugby clubs, and Foley football club, alongside Stoke City football club, of course, which is involved extensively with local charitable work, especially with young people, through its community trust. Longton rugby club, which was visited by the Prime Minister herself, is mainly run by volunteers. Its website stresses that none of what the club does behind the scenes and on the pitch would be possible without the dedicated work and support of volunteers.
In Meir, local partners, including the YMCA, are working to combat some of the challenges we are experiencing with antisocial behaviour and gangs. Critical to this is improving sports facilities for the community to ensure a distraction for those young people. Recent visits to charities in my constituency have shown me the breadth and vitality of the important work being done by these volunteers. The Grocott Centre, for example, which I visited in January, is a local independent charity based in Fenton that promotes the welfare, wellbeing and social inclusion of vulnerable groups. It does incredible work with people with dementia, elderly people and adults with learning or physical disabilities.
I was a delighted that Blurton Farm residents association received the Queen’s award for voluntary service in 2018, owing to the huge commitment and tireless work of volunteers, especially its chair, Christine Pratt. Other charities I have visited recently include Landau Stoke, Father Hudson’s Care, the Gingerbread Centre, Deaflinks and Temple Street Methodist church community café. I am hugely grateful to them all for the excellent work they do in the community. The Donna Louise children’s hospice and the Douglas Macmillan hospice also do phenomenal work to support families at their most harrowing and difficult times, and staff and volunteers—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman’s time is up.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). You have presented us with a challenge, Mr Deputy Speaker—to say everything that we want to say about connecting communities by supporting charities and volunteers, and to do it within five minutes—but I will have a go.
The House has been discussing charities for a very long time. The Charitable Uses Act was presented here in 1601. I venture to say that charities seem to be rather more popular than politicians. A recent survey by the Charities Aid Foundation found that 80% of adults in the United Kingdom think that charities play an essential role. Can we imagine a positive rating of 80% for any politician?
Another Member paid tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on charities and volunteering. Let me now pay tribute to my fellow officers in the group: my noble Friend Baroness Pitkeathley, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) and Lord Shinkwin. I also pay tribute to our secretariat, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and—most important of the lot—the large number of affiliated members of charities and community groups.
We all have amazing community groups in our constituencies. We can always argue here, as we do, about what is the role of the state and what is the role of voluntary groups, but that is not the debate that I want to have today. I want, for instance, to pay tribute to the amazing work of WINGS Wrexham, which works against period poverty in the borough of Wrexham. It deals with the lack of access to female sanitary products by providing collection points and fulfils a vital advocacy role.
I have five main points to make in slightly under three minutes. First, the Minister mentioned sustainable finance. That is important, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said earlier, volunteering does not come free and should not be done on the cheap. I urge the Minister and, indeed, all decision-makers to look back on some of the good work that resulted from the compact between the Government and voluntary sector. Let us aspire to longer-term funding, strategic planning, and—yes—full cost recovery.
Secondly, we know that volunteers, charities and community groups have a huge advocacy role. It was said in the Government’s civil society strategy that simply being in receipt of taxpayers’ money should not inhibit charities from making their voices heard on matters of policy and practice, and I welcome those words, but I want to see that always happening in practice. Charities have been, small p, political and have undertaken advocacy since the Royal British Legion campaigned on the rights of soldiers returning home after the first world war. I urge the Government to look again at the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and to take on board some of the recommendations of Lord Hodgson on that.
Thirdly, I believe that we need to rethink philanthropy. The Minister mentioned the development of gift aid, which is indeed very positive, and the gift aid small donations scheme, but we should also take account of the new philanthropy whereby people make donations that are backed up by supermarkets and other stores. There is no Treasury support on top of that, but consideration should be given to providing such support as part of the small donations scheme. That could work in much the same way as the donations of furniture to the British Heart Foundation.
Fourthly, the Minister mentioned the revival of deprived areas by means of dormant cash. I hope that she takes on board many of the ideas that have been advanced by voluntary organisations. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has referred to the need for a revolution in community ownership and participation.
Finally, let me make a point about trustees. The Minister mentioned that she was a trustee. I hope that she will support the ten-minute rule Bill that I will present on 6 March. According to the Charity Commission, at least 100,000 new trustees are appointed every year. I think that it is time to give them a status in law similar to that of school governors, local councillors, magistrates and those in other categories when it comes to time off for their duties—unpaid time off. I should be grateful if the Minister looked into that because it is time that we changed the law.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones).
During my time as a fire officer, Strathclyde fire and rescue was, as it still is, supported by volunteer firefighters. Indeed, in many remote and rural areas and islands, these dedicated individuals provide the first, and sometimes the only, response to emergencies in their own communities. Another public service, the NHS, experiences increasing demand for patient transport, and patients are seeking to minimise their time spent at hospital. Free transport tailored to an individual’s needs is provided by charities such as Ayrshire Cancer Support, and they are to be applauded for their good work. I also want to mention Maxine Allan for the Whiteleys Retreat, which provides rural respite facilities for children living with cancer. Some charities, such as the British Heart Foundation and Ayr’s SeAscape, are fortunate to have volunteers with the specialist skill to upcycle furniture and can so PAT—portable appliance testing—on electrical items for use by those given accommodation, particularly those who have been homeless.
A ladies lunch club held in aid of Ayrshire hospice recently helped to fund a new spa room for the patients; that was a remarkable achievement by these ladies, and there are many such groups throughout my constituency. On a visit to Alloway guides, I found them collecting items to pass on to others less fortunate than themselves and the seed of caring and sharing being planted at an early age with the project Citizen Girl. Volunteers also ensure the continuation of many annual events in my constituency, such as the Boswell book festival and the Cumnock tryst. Even Ayr’s famous Gaiety theatre is reliant upon the contributions of a team of volunteers, and the Belleisle conservatory was saved from dereliction to a delight by a group of dedicated volunteers.
However, there does not need to be a material or financial contribution, but simply people giving their time. The Rotary clubs have been mentioned for the good work they do, and I joined the Alloway Rotary just last Saturday for a litter pick in its community; that is most welcome.
By helping others, people might also help themselves get on to the employment ladder. Many life skills acquired while volunteering are transferable and often prove to be impressive on a CV. Many individuals who started out volunteering with the Prince’s Trust and other organisations have succeeded in finding permanent work placements.
Finally, I want to mention the most wonderful volunteer group and charity we have in the British Isles: the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, not just at Girvan but throughout the British Isles, and those who volunteer to serve at sea to save the lives of seafarers or those who are enjoying themselves on our very pleasant beaches, and equally those who are land-based who raise the charitable funds that wholly support the RNLI. As a nation we should be extremely proud of the volunteers who go to sea and those who raise funds on the land.
Although it is important that volunteers are properly vetted on sensitive matters, we must ensure that this valuable resource is neither exploited nor burdened by unnecessary regulation in what is a potentially litigious society. I hope that the Governments will continue to recognise the value of volunteers, and the contribution they make to their fellow citizens and their communities.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
It has been said that volunteering is the ultimate exercise in democracy: we vote in elections once a year perhaps, but when we volunteer we vote every day about the kind of community we want to live in. I am sure I speak on behalf of many Members in saying it is a privilege to see and support the fantastic charitable work taking place in my constituency of Colne Valley, across Kirklees and across the country. Volunteers are people who through their actions make a commitment to the kind of community they want to be a part of: a community that is a friend to those facing isolation, that advocates for those without a voice, and that helps to feed families in need at the most difficult times. The dedication and commitment these volunteers and charitable workers have to this vision of a better society is invaluable.
I want to use my time today to thank just a few of the people doing brilliant work in Colne Valley and throughout Kirklees. I recently visited Clare House, a development aimed at tackling homelessness by providing accommodation and supporting residents with complex needs. In addition to providing a safe environment, Clare House offers the time and resources to help people to rebuild their lives. It is supported by Kirklees Council, but many volunteers also support it by donating their work and time.
A number of groups are also working to ensure that those in need have enough food for their families, and I have seen at first hand the wonderful work being done by the Welcome Centre, the Mission, the Women’s Centre, Holmfirth food bank and the Fit and Fed programme. The warmth of the Colne Valley people is also seen in the local groups aiming to tackle social isolation, including Clem’s Garden and Friend To Friend. In the true spirit of our local community, people are reaching out to one another to share experiences and to form friendships. Destitute Asylum Seekers Huddersfield, where I was once a volunteer myself, has turned around the lives of many who have experienced displacement and trauma. Ruddi’s Retreat and Waves are both charities supporting vulnerable children and their families. There are too many others to mention, but I am grateful to them all for their hard work and community spirit.
All these charities, and the work they do, help to provide a safety net for vulnerable people. I have seen this need grow and grow in the past eight years as austerity has pushed more and more people into poverty and difficult circumstances, but here’s the thing: I actually do not believe in relying on charity. If the Government are doing their job properly, people should not need to rely on voluntary support. These groups should not be stretched beyond capacity, and workers should not feel pressured to provide support when the Government fall short. Food bank usage should not be at its highest rate on record, homeless people should not be dying on our streets, and over 4 million children should not be living in poverty. A Government should provide access to quality education, healthcare, social care and housing for every citizen; that is their right in a civilised society. That is what I believe in, and it is what I will continue to fight for. In the meantime, I will continue to admire and support those who give up their time and resources to help others.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
A week past Monday, the Minister, who spoke so well at the start of this debate, was reported in Hansard as saying, “thank goodness for Stirling!” I hope that she will feel compelled to say something similar when she sums up at the end of this debate. Much has been said today about how communities become connected by volunteering, and I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying, with no little pride and a great deal of humility, that Stirling is an epicentre when it comes to volunteering. Stirling was the UK’s sole contender for the European volunteering capital for 2020, and it was shortlisted to the final two.
The latest Scottish household survey shows that 39% of people in Stirling volunteer, compared with the national average for Scotland of 28%. This means that 30,000 people are enlisted as volunteers, working to improve the quality of life in so many aspects of the Stirling constituency. They are young and old, male and female, and people of faith and no faith. They are the people who keep our community centres open, who provide vital care for vulnerable people and who are working to enhance and protect our environment. It is the volunteers who are the backbone of Stirling district citizens advice bureau, and of Start Up Stirling, which runs Stirling’s food bank and mobile food bank. They do so much to support and help people who are in difficulties and distress for any number of reasons, and they do so in a way that is entirely focused on helping people to get back on their feet, whether that involves a short-term or a longer-term commitment. Those organisations have my deep and abiding appreciation and admiration, and I am glad that my office works closely with both of them.
Let us take the Trossachs search and rescue team as another example. They won several prestigious Scottish and UK-wide awards last year and, more importantly, they have won the gratitude of the many communities from Strathblane to Strathyre who were cut off and isolated as a result of the “beast from the east”. The Braeport memory cafe in Dunblane and Town Break in Stirling do a magnificent job in helping and supporting those with dementia and their families. With new initiatives being planned in other parts of my constituency, the work of those volunteers is inspirational. Many of their families have been affected by dementia, as indeed has mine.
The Doune Community Woodland Group has recently completed another successful path project at Doune ponds. It was officially opened just last Saturday, and it is physically connecting communities as well as encouraging health and wellbeing in this historic rural community. Then there is PLUS Forth Valley, which is based in Stirling and works with children with additional support requirements and their families. Its motto is “disabilities are no barrier to fun” and the hard work of its extraordinary volunteers makes that statement come to life. They have my full admiration.
I was recently privileged to attend the annual Killin Drama Club panto. Not only was it a superb production, but it was very funny and brought the whole community together, enhancing everybody’s wellbeing. I want specifically to mention Gordon Hibbert, who has written and directed the pantomime for the past 24 years. I look forward to his 25th production this year.
Volunteering is the fastener that brings our communities together and then keeps them together. As parliamentarians, when we see a societal need or a social injustice, it is always tempting to reach into taxpayers’ pockets to fund an imposed remedy. However, when we do that, often inadvertently creating governmental agencies and complex bureaucracies, we must be very careful. Communities that work together can not only bring about sustainable change, but be strengthened and uplifted in the process. They provide the service, but they also give love and receive love in return. That is the enduring thing which binds us all together, come what may.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I start by declaring an interest, because I will refer to organisations in which I am involved. I am a patron of a charity called Futureversity, co-founder and chair of the Uprising leadership charity, and co-founder of the One Million Mentors initiative.
We need a lively, independent, vibrant and innovative civil society sector, as many Members have said. Volunteering and charitable activity is a critical foundation of our society and the hallmark of a healthy society and economy. The sector must be underpinned by both Government and philanthropic funding and donations encouraged by incentives such as Gift Aid, which was introduced by the Labour Government. I hope that this Government will consider other imaginative ways of encouraging donations.
No society is truly healthy if the high fiscal rewards for entrepreneurship or investment are not matched by a strong sense of social responsibility and bonds of reciprocity. Charities and volunteers work tirelessly, especially in the current climate, to create a fairer society, to address environmental challenges in our communities, to tackle poverty and inequality and to address social justice challenges. The Charities Aid Foundation found that 80% of UK adults think that charities play an essential role in their local community. Britain is a better place thanks to philanthropy, charity and voluntary activity.
My constituency is famous for volunteers, community organisations and old institutions, such as Toynbee Hall, which employed Clement Attlee before his entry into politics. He became mayor of Stepney in my constituency, then a Member of Parliament in the area, and later one of the most successful Prime Ministers of the past century. The east end of London has a great heritage of charitable activity and entrepreneurship, and that has continued. London’s Air Ambulance, which serves people across our capital, is based in my constituency, and many people do not realise that it is a charity. We have the Osmani Trust, the Attlee Foundation, the Young Foundation, City Gateway, Muslim Aid and many others. The ones that I am not mentioning will be offended, but there are hundreds of them, so I am unable to name them all. The fact is that charities should not replace the functions of the state; what they do must be complementary. They should enrich our society, not put plasters on the wounds inflicted by the Government.
This week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions finally admitted that the Government’s universal credit policy has led to an increase in food bank use. We know that food banks do amazing work, but in a civilised society they should not have to do it. Their funding could be invested elsewhere if the Government addressed those issues. The Government should support charities, but not expect them to substitute for what public services should be doing.
I want to draw on my experience of starting up charities. I had the good fortune of working for the author of the 1945 Labour manifesto, Michael Young, in his later life. It was the best kind of apprenticeship in politics and social entrepreneurship. I saw that we can be imaginative in addressing the big social challenges in our country by using insight, observation and research, but that means that the Government must fund innovation. I appeal to the Minister to do that.
I also appeal to the Minister to address some of the issues relating to unspent or ineffective funding, such as the £10 million provided to the National Citizen Service for unfilled places. We need more effective spending in the charitable sector, which desperately needs support. It was promised that £425 million that was invested in the Olympic village would be returned to the charitable sector. That money could be used immediately by charities that desperately need help to address issues such as youth crime.
I was able to set up charities to help young people. I hope that this Government will continue to support them. If they do, there will be direct benefits to our economy. I am grateful that we are having this debate, and I hope the Government continue to invest in that very important sector.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). I join her in praising the valuable contribution that charities and volunteers make to our local communities.
Modern lifestyles mean that we often do not interact with our closest neighbours as much as we used to. Some people may not even know the name of their elderly neighbours, who are perhaps alone and vulnerable to doorstep crime, such as rogue traders and scams. Although there is no substitute for personal contact with our neighbours, our busy lives sometimes make that difficult so we should look at other ways to keep people connected. Technology in the charitable sector can empower volunteers and enable people to address crime in their community.
In my constituency, people want to see more officers on the beat, and I welcome the Government funding to address that. However, the residents I speak to also highlight the lack of community awareness and cohesion. If we are truly to tackle that and address vulnerability and crime, people need to know how to get to know their neighbours and work with the police and their local authorities.
As part of the coalition Government’s localism agenda, Baroness Helen Newlove was appointed Government champion for active, safer communities. In 2011, she published a report that argued that there is a public appetite for greater involvement with neighbourhood watch and other activities. It said:
“Being actively involved in your community and helping to keep it safe needs to become the norm rather than the exception.”
The Neighbourhood and Home Watch Network has been successful in connecting people. There are 170,000 neighbourhood watch schemes across England and Wales, supported by 173,000 dedicated volunteer co-ordinators, covering 3.8 million member households. It is the UK’s largest voluntary crime prevention movement. Every week, tens of thousands of residents and volunteers share information to keep themselves and their communities safe from crime.
In my borough of Stockport, the neighbourhood watch association is helping the Greater Manchester police’s economic crime unit to tackle scams by providing free training sessions to make residents scam-aware. The borough of Stockport has the highest percentage of residents aged over 65 in Greater Manchester and the highest number of recorded scams in the region. I hosted a similar scam smart event last autumn, which brought together Greater Manchester police and charities such as Age UK and Citizens Advice. Although it was distressing to share stories of criminal fraud, there was a real appetite among the attendees to learn how best to protect themselves. By harnessing technology we can encourage active community engagement, which will have the knock-on effect of helping to address urban crime and strengthen local bonds.
People really are starting to get connected; social media and mobile phone apps have been adopted by some neighbourhoods to distribute and discuss information in an informal way. Sharing information in this way can make people feel that they are part of a wider network, working together to keep their community safe. Mobile phone apps also generate a sense of community, through feelings of collective safety and information sharing. Indeed, some Cheadle residents having been organising and engaging in neighbourhood groups for some time. The challenge is in connecting such groups with local police forums in order that there can be an exchange of information, but it can be overcome. A national roll-out of a neighbourhood watch app could be an invaluable tool in joining up volunteers spread across different force areas. If successful, it would enable charities and volunteers, working together with residents, police and local authorities, to make a real difference to the wellbeing of the community.
That is why I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to establish the charity digital skills partnership, to help charities build their digital skills. That fund is investing up to £1 million in upskilling civil society leaders so they are able to embed digital into their organisations. I hope that money will also filter down into organisations such as Neighbourhood Watch. It is essential that those working in the charity sector are equipped with the skills they need to fully embrace the potential of new technologies and empower communities. This debate has enabled us to show our appreciation for the tireless work of volunteers and the third sector, and I look forward to the advancement of new technologies in the charitable sector, too.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to speak in this debate, because volunteering is the life-blood that flows through our communities. It is what keeps the heart of our communities beating throughout my constituency, the whole of Scotland and the whole of the UK. My constituency is particularly blessed with many charitable and voluntary groups and organisations, such as the Beith Community Development Trust; Promoting Kilwinning; Largs Community Garden; Café Solace, in Kilbirnie and in Ardrossan, run by Recovery at Work; the Scottish Centre for Personal Safety, in Ardrossan; the Ayrshire Community Trust; North Ayrshire Cancer Care; the Arran Community and Voluntary Service; CLASP—the Community Led Action and Support Project—in Stevenston; the Opportunities in Retirement groups across North Ayrshire; the Ayrshire Hospice volunteers; the North Ayrshire food banks; the RNLI—Royal National Lifeboat Institution—Largs; and of course the committee that keeps the heart of Whitlees beating by running the Whitlees community centre in Ardrossen. I should also mention all of those who work in each of our towns to provide gala days such as the Saltcoats Sea Queen festival and so many other events. There are far, far too many people and groups to mention, but they all provide a range of services throughout the community, for our young people and not so young people.
We can be proud that 27% of adults in Scotland, more than 1.2 million people, have volunteered formally through an organisation or group in the past year, and this figure has remained relatively stable for the past nine years. Some 30% of adults living in North Ayrshire, an estimated 34,000 people, volunteer formally, which is above the national Scottish figure of 27%. In recent years, it is estimated that volunteers living in North Ayrshire contributed 4.5 million hours of help and £62 million to the local economy—the figure for the whole of Scotland is believed to be £2 billion contributed to our economy by volunteers. The future looks bright, as research on participation and attitudes among young people aged between 11 and 18 found that youth volunteering participation had grown to 52%, which is nearly double the adult figure of 27%. As we have heard, volunteering can lead to enhanced job prospects as well, as new skills are learned and confidence grows for the volunteer.
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations tells us that the third sector is made up of a variety of organisations, such as registered charities, housing organisations, sports and art clubs, and so on—the list is very long. These organisations do fantastic and important work, such as delivering employability services, supporting people with health challenges, bringing people together through social activities, forming self-help and support groups, and, of course, improving our environment through conservation, heritage groups and regenerating our communities.
If Members speak to volunteers, they will always tell us about the satisfaction and fulfilment that they find in the work they do. Of course, not only does each volunteer often make more of a difference to their community than they may ever even know, but the whole army of volunteers that populates our communities has such a profound effect, and they are so woven into the fabric of our streets and towns, that they are part of our daily lives.
Interestingly, the London School of Economics found a clear relationship between volunteering and happiness: the more people volunteered, the happier they were—and they were much happier than those who did not volunteer at all. Throughout my constituency I have met some wonderful people who selflessly give up their time to help others and to add value to their community in ways that cannot be measured in pounds and pence because their value is much more profound than that. Studies also show that volunteering is an effective tool against depression and anxiety and is an excellent confidence booster, on top of the fact that such volunteers enjoy a wider social circle.
It is the basic, human, fundamental desire to help others that drives our army of volunteers in towns across the UK, Scotland and North Ayrshire and Arran, and throughout our communities. They are the too-often unsung heroes who perform such valuable work in our communities, day in, day out, and upon whom our communities rely and could not well do without. It is right and fitting that today we celebrate and recognise these unsung heroes, which is why I am delighted to have spoken in this debate and why, in common with everybody in the Chamber, I am sure, I want to take this opportunity to say, to each and every one of them, thank you.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who gave a fantastic speech.
I have been volunteering all my life—it is truly in my DNA. I started when I was around seven, taking children from inner-city Birmingham to camps in the countryside. I continued at university, doing a stint as a counsellor answering the Nightline service, and then with a long-standing role with the National Childbirth Trust. Finally, I spent 15 years with the scout movement. I have also taken an active role at my local church throughout my life.
In my business life, I have seen the massive value and benefit of volunteering and community activity for my businesses and other businesses that I know about. I was proud to be a founding trustee for the LoveBrum charity, which helps to empower small charities that do not have Government funding—true grassroots charities working across Birmingham, where my business was based—to make a real difference and receive funding. It is fantastic to see those charities now going from strength to strength. I have seen how leaders throughout the business community have embraced volunteering for their employees, because they know that it helps to build stronger employees and a stronger work culture. Ultimately, it makes businesses attractive places to work, so it is truly a win-win.
I have been privileged and fortunate all my life to have taken part in such activities. I have made friends for life, developed new skills and learned more about myself than I could ever have imagined. Such opportunities have truly changed my life. In particular, if someone can stand up in a room full of eight-year-old cub scouts and get them to be quiet and say their prayers, it is just a small step to standing up in this place.
In common with other Members, I wish to pay tribute to some of the fantastic charities in my constituency. I have been blown away by the compassion and commitment of local people in Redditch. I cannot mention them all, but I wish to highlight the Repair Café; Carers Careline; Men in Sheds, the recent recipient of a £10,000 Big Lottery grant; Redditch Nightstop; Boys2Men, a charity that recently won the inspirational mentor award from the Kids Count charity here in Parliament; Your Ideas; the YMCA; Home-Start; Where Next; the Sandycroft Centre; and, of course, the League of Friends of the Alex hospital in my constituency.
In the time I have left, I wish to focus on the impact of the National Citizen Service in my constituency, which I have visited and supported. Volunteering is a fantastic opportunity for young people to develop confidence as they go on to tackle the challenges in their lives. In particular, the NCS scheme enables them to get out from behind the technology and screens that so often dominate the lives of young people today. It puts them in situations outside their comfort zone, and they have to work together in groups with young people they would not normally meet in their neighbourhoods or school classrooms. They are learning vital life skills at a really early age. NCS builds their confidence and helps them to develop resilience to tackle some of the problems that they face in this day and age. I really want to congratulate the Minister on the work that the Government are doing in that regard.
I want to highlight the role that social prescribing can play in this really important arena. I have heard Members say that, often, those who volunteer get more out of the process than the people who are the recipients. Surely, this is a fantastic opportunity to harness this power for good to contribute to the health of our nation as a whole. We need to connect our communities—there are people who need help and who need volunteering—in a systematic and widespread way. That would be a massive and encouraging step forward. The Health Secretary has recently outlined such a plan, which, I am pleased to say, will be backed up by Government funding in the future.
I must just mention the Commonwealth games. Redditch is obviously very close to Birmingham where we will be holding our Commonwealth games in 2022. I am the vice-chair of the all-party group for the Commonwealth games. I have been leading a campaign in my local area to ensure that there is legacy and an active contribution from Redditch to this fantastic event. We want to play a part and we are looking forward to the games.
We are a nation of volunteers. I will finish with one quote. The recipe for happiness is very simple. What we need is, “Someone to care for, something to do, and something to look forward to.” Volunteering addresses all three of those things.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is really great to get the opportunity to speak in this debate. There are so many charities and organisations that I could mention, but, with just five minutes in which to speak, I clearly do not have the time to do so. I could easily speak for a number of hours about the different organisations that I have seen in my constituency, as I am sure could Members across this House. I echo those who have said thank you to our volunteers, particularly to those who are genuinely involved in charitable organisations and charitable activities across Scotland and across the wider UK. Our communities would be incredibly different without them.
I shall start on a slightly negative note, but I promise that the rest of my speech will be positive. When talking about the number of people volunteering, I have to say that I have a real concern about millennials and their ability to volunteer given that they are working in jobs that are lower paid than in previous generations, given that their housing costs are increased, and that, in some cases, they are having to work more hours than those from previous generations. Finding time to volunteer in that stramash of everything that has been going on since the financial crisis is really hard for them. Anything that the Government can do to help, such as increasing the minimum wage, would be great as it would give people that breathing space so that they can have time to go out and volunteer.
I have one more general point in relation to corporate social responsibility. When I sit down and speak to organisations that want to put forward corporate social responsibility, I say to them, “Most people can paint a shed or do something like that, but if you are an IT organisation and you can bring your expertise to help people improve their IT systems or to help people fill in funding applications, that would be absolutely vital for some of our frontline charities.” I encourage companies thinking about corporate social responsibility to go down those routes if they possibly can, especially if they have that expertise within their organisations.
Let me talk about some of the charities in my constituency. There is an organisation called Lighthouse in Tillydrone, which was co-founded by John Merson. This man has had an amazing life. As a prison pastor, he found that there was almost a revolving door for people coming out of prison, and he wanted to help them. His church was in an affluent area of Aberdeen, but he started to work in one of Aberdeen’s more deprived communities. The difference that his project has made to people coming out of prison in that community is absolutely unbelievable. The work was totally taken on by him to begin with, but he now has an army of volunteers and paid workers. He planted the seed of that project, and it could not have been better for that community.
Newhills Parish Church has a Living Well Café and a dementia outreach service. It has a befriending project, which provides support for people who are lonely. The café is linked in with dementia services, and it is a brilliant place to go along to. Music 4 U is another organisation in my constituency. It is a stage school that does shows. People with physical and learning disabilities attend the school. Everyone is supported in that organisation to reach their potential. It is just how I think life should be, with everyone supported to reach their potential and overcome barriers. I could not be more supportive of Music 4 U and Debbie Kirkness, who runs that organisation.
Aberdeen Muslims does excellent work in supporting the local community. For example, the beach in Aberdeen was an absolute mess after flooding a few years ago; there was stuff everywhere, and the Aberdeen Muslim community rallied round and organised much-needed beach cleans.
There are so many more groups in my area. I will briefly mention the uniformed organisations such as the Guides, the Scouts, the Boys’ Brigade and the Girls’ Brigade. I started my journey in the Guides at Rainbows, and my daughter has now started her journey in Rainbows. I was a Rainbow, then a Brownie, then a Guide and then a Young Leader. [Interruption.] How things have changed—not necessarily for the better. I have also helped to run a Rainbows group. The volunteering hours are a brilliant experience. These organisations are so good for bringing people together from all the different corners of communities, and giving them the opportunity to socialise with people who they might not normally socialise with.
I have said before that I am not religious, but I could not have more respect for the amount of volunteering that our religious and faith communities do. My city would be very different if it were not for people who attend churches of all different types, and who volunteer and try to improve their communities. I thank them all.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my position as a councillor for Thorniewood on North Lanarkshire Council.
In all our communities, charities carry out work on a voluntary basis, from supporting the elderly to assisting families who have fallen on hard times. In many cases, they are only able to do so because of the dedication of volunteers and the generosity of the public. I often ask myself where we would be without volunteers. I look at the work that charities do in my constituency for the good people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, and it reaffirms my belief that they are a key part of the very foundations of our society.
I look at the fantastic work and dedication of the volunteers at Coatbridge food bank, which I helped to grow. It exists because of the Tory austerity and welfare reforms like universal credit. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions herself now accepts that there is a link between the increasing use of food banks and the botched roll-out of universal credit. Isn’t it a shame that some volunteers are getting sanctioned for helping?
Considering the work of local charities, I am not surprised that the Charities Aid Foundation found that 80% of the public believe that charities play a vital role in the UK. It saddens me that our charities are now facing difficult circumstances because of the actions of this Government; just look at the way they are handling Brexit. The charity sector currently relies on £250 million of funding from the EU—funding that the Government said they would match through the UK shared prosperity fund after Brexit. Just like so many other promises made by this Government, it has been broken, leaving the charity sector in a state of deep uncertainty about its future funding.
Charities find themselves gagged because of the Government’s lobbying Act—the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. Charities do important work in highlighting issues within our society and across the world. They campaign, build public support for a cause and take their arguments to MPs to seek change. The lobbying Act prevents charities from speaking out and doing this important work. Indeed, the Government have used gagging clauses to prevent charities from speaking out—otherwise they risk losing contracts from Government Departments. The Charities Aid Foundation found that 67% of people felt that charities were best placed to speak for the disadvantaged, yet they are being denied the chance to do so because of the lobbying Act. It should be abolished, and the next Labour Government will ensure that it is consigned to the dustbin of history.
It is worth reflecting on the increasing need for charities in our society. Charities are assuming greater responsibilities in providing support for our elderly, the disadvantaged and others who would once have used services offered by the Government. But the Government’s continued pursuit of austerity has led to a loss of local services and charities having to plug the gaps with decreasing funds at their disposal. In England, we are seeing council cuts of 60%, and Scotland is no different. We have austerity in Scotland. We are losing community centres, volunteer groups, libraries, and other much-needed services. This year, my own council has been asked to find £30 million. It saddens me that the Government have cut vital local services without pausing to think of the consequences or of whether the charity sector would be able to step in to cover the gaps in public service provision.
As I said, I am the councillor for Thorniewood on North Lanarkshire Council. I receive a salary that I donate to local charities, groups, associations, and anyone I can help in their hour of need. In a time of austerity and increasing pressure on charities, I want to do my bit to ensure that their vital work can continue across my constituency for the good people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. I have been pleased to help many charities—in particular, Bumblebee Babies, which does so much work to support parents of stillborn children. That group nearly closed and finished because of a lack of funding.
I will continue to support charities whenever I can. I call on this Government to provide the support that our charities need nationally as well. It is time to stop the cuts to their funding. It is time to stop gagging them in their campaign efforts. It is time to stop leaving them in uncertainty about their future after Brexit. It is about time that our charities were properly supported so that they can continue the vital work that they do in all our communities. As I said earlier, where would we be without the volunteers?
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
There is widespread consensus that charities and volunteering organisations are an integral part of our society. Research from the Charities Aid Foundation has shown that 80% of UK adults think that charities play an essential role in their local communities.
My constituency is an excellent example of why this is the case. The community has an amazing network of voluntary organisations who carry out wonderful work to ensure that support is there for those who desperately need it. Locally, we have a whole range of different groups and organisations that provide information and support, helping people to find what they need to get back on track. Acts of generosity and compassion from local volunteers and charities in my constituency provide lifelines for people in need. These volunteers are critical to the functioning of our communities. They represent the very best of us.
In Britain, we have a proud tradition of generosity and helping those in need. The voluntary sector is a cornerstone of that tradition. But the Government must build on this by supporting initiatives to help people of all ages and backgrounds to volunteer. There is little evidence to suggest that they are committed to doing so. In 2015, the Conservative party announced plans to introduce volunteering leave for workers. Little effort has been made to follow through on this pledge, and it appears to have been quietly put to one side.
After more than eight years of Tory austerity, there is an over-reliance on the generosity of local people as a substitute for properly funded local services. Volunteers should not be expected to pick up the pieces when swingeing Tory cuts shatter our local communities. Despite their best efforts, voluntary organisations are seriously struggling to step in to replace local services. Cuts to local government have led to the closure of 428 day centres, 1,000 children’s centres, 600 youth centres and 478 public libraries. Make no mistake: cuts to these services are cuts to the very fabric of our society. Without proactive local services and a well-supported voluntary sector, loneliness, isolation and social division will rise. If the Government are serious about connecting communities by supporting charities and volunteers, they will make good on the Prime Minister’s promise last year that “austerity is over”. It is high time the Government put an end to austerity before the damage done is irreparable.
I thank, commend and salute all volunteers and everyone working for charities and community groups. I am proud to be the MP for Warrington South and to represent this country, where we have such people in our society, making a huge difference.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been an inspiring debate. The world is a cynical place at the moment, and all the Brexit debates highlight just how divided this House can be, but when we talk about the fabric of our communities and what makes them the places they are, there is a real glow from MPs.
I pay tribute to all Members who have spoken today, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who talked about the great work in her constituency to support people with dementia, as well as the human cost of austerity and cuts, with children going hungry. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) is a champion for Citizens Advice, and her expertise in that field really adds value to this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), as chair of the APPG on charities and volunteering, lives and breathes the charity sector and goes above and beyond; she shows that every day in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) talked about the real price of austerity, how the cuts feel on the ground and how desperate it is that so many people are turning to food banks as a direct result of austerity and deliberate choices that the Government have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) has been a champion of volunteering for a long time, going up and down the country and building a network of volunteers with real commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) talked about austerity and the direct impact of cuts on charities. It is not just that charities are picking up the pieces after public sector cuts. Charities themselves have faced cuts, and on top of that, when they are contracted by the Government, they are told that they cannot speak out on the issues that affect them and the reason they exist. He made that case passionately. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) talked about the importance of charities in Warrington and how they are part of the fabric of that community.
The backdrop of this debate cannot be ignored, and it has been mentioned a number of times. The charities that do this fantastic work, that go above and beyond, that we all take inspiration from, that we all visit and that we all thank today are, by and large, picking up the pieces where the Government have decided that they are not responsible, walked away, taken the money and left communities to sink or swim.
Many examples have been given today, including food bank activity; the work that communities are doing to self-organise and respond to crime and antisocial behaviour in their area; people taking on the local library because the council money has been taken away, and to keep it open, they have to self-organise; and community volunteers on estates who are stepping up because they recognise that young people do not have the facilities they used to have to keep them out of trouble and give them a positive focus and hope.
We hear all these stories, and they are inspiring, but this is about transferral of responsibility. I remember a former Prime Minister, who I think is in a shed somewhere writing his memoirs, talking about the big society and this big idea of an emboldened civil society where charities are supported. The truth is that charities have just about kept their head above water. In the way that councils, the police service and the fire service have seen cuts, charities have also seen severe cuts.
In my town, we used to have an area-based grant, which was directed to areas of high deprivation, to support the community infrastructure that was so important. When the coalition Government came into power in 2010, they cancelled that with less than a year’s notice. The staff of community groups and charities that were set up to provide that support were just thrown on the scrapheap, as though the work they did in the community did not matter.
Given that it is customary for MPs to mention charities in their area, I want to pay tribute to the fantastic work of a range of charities in mine. There is a danger, when we do this, that we please a handful and really annoy a long list of people who we do not have time to mention. I want to mention Dr Kershaw’s hospice. Whichever community someone comes from in Oldham, they will be connected to that hospice at a time when they are at their most desperate, feeling pain that they never thought they would have to go through and not being sure how to cope when it hits. The hospice has given people who are nearing the end of their life the support, courage and confidence to get through that very painful time, and it is genuinely part of the community.
Like many places, however, we have community groups that, if we are honest, we would wish did not exist. I wish that Oldham did not need a food bank, and I wish it was not a thriving food bank, but it is. I wish that the Andy’s Man Club did not have to support people who feel suicidal, but it does. There are lots of other examples.
I could not help but notice that quite a big chunk of money was announced earlier, and we had a taste of some of the areas that are likely to receive some of the funding. Given the Members who have contributed here today and the work they have highlighted in their communities, I just hope that the funding, when the list is finally published, is fairly distributed by geography. I hope that it absolutely targets areas of need and deprivation, takes into account that some areas have been hit harder by public service reductions than others and really supports places where there is genuine working together across institutions.
This is not about good Government or bad Government, with charities over here and the community over there. When this works well, in the way we have heard about today, it is because everyone comes together. When a council works well, it is the community; when a charity works well, it is the community; and when a next-door neighbour checks up on an elderly relative—collects the post and does all the things we have talked about—that is the community. The fabric of our community is under great strain at the moment, and it really requires us to make sure that we begin to reinvest in it.
The Prime Minister made a promise that austerity was over, recognising that the pain had been very deep, knowing that it was a big factor in the referendum result and wanting to address that. Unfortunately, she was undermined by her Chancellor who had the opportunity in the autumn statement genuinely to end austerity and decided, “Well, to hell with it. Let’s just carry on.” They must have been quite enjoying the journey that they were taking. I would say that most people in this Chamber, if they are honest, are looking at their own local authorities, regardless of political complexion and geography—whether rural or urban, north or south—and wondering how on earth that council will be able to survive over the next couple of years.
Why is council funding so important? Because the council, which is democratically elected and of the community—people themselves elect who they want to be their voice in their town or city—comes together and brings people together, and it is often the first port of call. We cannot have thriving civil society if we have underfunded and starved local government; we cannot have thriving local government if we have not got thriving civil society; and none of that works if we have not got decent people. Whatever our view today, we should all be very proud of the country we live in. We are a mixed, diverse, vibrant country full of wonderful people who, every day, do amazing things.
Mims Davies
With the leave of the House, I want to respond by picking up on a few points. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon)—and thank goodness for men’s sheds. I thank the 18 speakers from across the House who have contributed to this really positive debate this afternoon. We have heard about some incredible organisations and incredible individuals and about what we are doing in our communities to support and connect people.
I want to pick up on some of the challenges for and concerns of charities. Charities hold assets of about £260 billion, and their total income has gone up from £52 billion in 2009 to £77 billion today. We have heard about charity trustees. There are over 700,000 unpaid charity trustees, and charities employ over 1 million people. I will come on to say a little more about trustees in a moment.
We heard about some of the amazing charities, and I completely agree, particularly about the citizens advice bureaux. There are the RNLI and independent lifeboat charities; our hospices; those who volunteer to support the NHS; yes, the men’s clubs; neighbourhood watch; our air ambulances; and Singing for Syrians. There is diversity and resilience in our charities and social enterprises through our trustees, patrons and organisers. I completely agree that they all need support because of the difference that they make. Our civil society is a force to be reckoned with, as we have heard today. This Government are committed to supporting growth in civil society to make sure it continues to have an impact for many years ahead and truly helps us to build a country that works for everyone. As we heard today, we never meet an unhappy volunteer. Volunteers often give because it helps them have great self-esteem.
I will briefly mention some organisations in my patch: the Countess Mountbatten Hospice Charity in West End, the Hamble lifeboat and One Community, which received the Queen’s award for voluntary service. We heard today what that means for those amazing charities that do so much. I could spend quite some time thanking all the charities in my area. People have done well to lever in so many this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) spoke about having to pick up the pieces of austerity. I want us to recognise that the sector has shown itself to be strong. There is a growing number of charities, as I said earlier. They are an important part of our community and they have continued to thrive.
On the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, it is an important role of charities to speak on behalf of their beneficiaries. That is their role. As I said in my first remarks to the NCVO in December—indeed, the Prime Minister has written to Sir Stuart Etherington about this—we want it to be absolutely clear that we are not stopping providers standing up for what is right. It is absolutely right that charities can continue to advocate for the community.
On EU funding, we know that access to future funding is a concern for civil society organisations. My officials are working with colleagues across the Government to inform our plans about future funds, and I will keep the House updated.
I am very keen to mention the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), as was the Scottish National Party spokesman, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). Her APPG does vital work to support charities and volunteering, along with the NCVO, which of course is in its centenary year. I have offered to come to the APPG for social enterprise as well. It is vital that we talk about the challenges for unpaid trustees, and I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Clwyd South to discuss her Bill. We should empower and help trustees. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) spoke about the need to support skills such as accountancy and people management among volunteers.
On dormant assets, we will talk further about that issue. We have a group of industry champions who are working on a blueprint. They submitted their report in December, and we are considering the proposals on extending the scheme. We know how much money is there and how much good it can do. There is great news for people in the charities sector, because there is so much thriving locally and we can all share the best practice.
I just need to say thank goodness for Stirling. We heard today that it is better than average when it comes to volunteering. That gives everybody else an opportunity to match Stirling. Looking around the Chamber this afternoon, we have heard what it means to our communities when people stand up and get involved.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) how sport can help. Sport is the other side of my portfolio. Some 6.3 million people volunteer in sport. When one person volunteers in sport, eight people benefit. I thank all those who step up.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) raised concerns about school holidays and food banks and about children being fit and fed. StreetGames has launched a campaign on that idea, which incorporates holiday activity sessions for communities that need them, with a nutritious meal every day, free of charge. The national lottery is funding that fantastic initiative through Sport England.
As the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) said, we need to recognise our volunteers. We have the Points of Light awards, so please nominate people. We can nominate people for an honour. Of course, there is also the Queen’s award for voluntary service.
We heard about the NCS and the challenge of getting youth volunteers. Actually, I think people get so much out of volunteering. I have been to NCS sessions, and if our young people find time to give back to their communities, they feel much more connected as a result.
The Government are very concerned about knife crime, which was mentioned in the debate. Knife crime is devastating for our communities, and we are determined to tackle it. We set out a comprehensive programme in the serious violence strategy, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a youth endowment fund of £200 million to support interventions for our children and young people who are at risk of getting involved in violent crime.
We have had a great afternoon highlighting the bold and bright future that lies ahead for charities, civil society and volunteers. We are living through a difficult period of change, but there is huge potential to do more to connect communities through innovative ideas. We heard how new technology is providing one such opportunity. We are investing close to £4 million to support civil society, through the tech sector, and the Government are coming together to solve social challenges in this way. We know that it can help to tackle loneliness in particular.
We have a vision for the future where charities, social enterprises and good business practice work together, so that we continue to have charities that are well-regulated, independent and self-sustaining, reflecting the communities and the causes they wish to serve. That includes addressing the issue of safeguarding, where again we have an opportunity to be a world leader. It is important that we get the safeguarding and protections part of charities right, so that civil society can continue its important role of supporting our public services and local partnerships. I will be giving an update on that next month, six months on from the civil society strategy.
It is clear from this debate that we should all have the opportunity to support and encourage our wonderful local charities and volunteers and that we should continue to work together to provide opportunities for young people. Charities and social enterprise can connect communities, encouraging further social responsibility and social finance so that together we can build a connected community that improves lives and society. Working together, we can realise that collective ambition to make our country the very best it can be: a country that works for everyone and supports everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered connecting communities by supporting charities and volunteers.
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the selling of personal data
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency and the selling of personal data. This is quite an interesting issue. Under the 2002 regulations, the DVLA may provide, free of charge, information to the police and local authorities for use in connection with an offence, but it may also make it available for a fee to any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting particulars to be made available to him, and reasonable cause is not defined. This clearly appears to be an anomaly that should be rectified.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Linlithgow and Falkirk East.
Declares that the petitioners believe that it is immoral that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are allowed to sell personal data to the third parties, irrespective of whether or not the Treasury gains financially; believes that most members of the public will not be aware that this practice is permitted; further believes that the DVLA should only be permitted information to the police and local authorities for use in connection with an offence.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review the existing Data Protection legislation and that consideration be given to prohibiting the DVLA from selling personal data to third parties.
[P002420]
NHS Menopause Services
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I thank the Members who have stayed behind for this important debate.
Every woman will experience the menopause at some stage in her life. When she does, she will embark on a journey that will throw up some of the most pernicious taboos that still exist in our society. The toxic combination of ageism and sexism that exist around the menopause, piled on top of the often debilitating symptoms, can cause mental health problems, relationship difficulties, problems at work, anxiety and depression, and much more. While menopause is a natural stage of life and ought to herald new freedoms and opportunities, for too many, it turns out to be the opposite. I know this from the menopause work that I have been doing in my constituency, including a Menopause Café, where we get together to drink tea and coffee, eat cake and talk about the menopause.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
To speak from my own perspective, I organised a Menopause Café in my constituency in the Stan Ball Centre, and I was delighted to see a number of women from right across the constituency. Quite a broad range of age groups came to that event, so I will be arranging more in future.
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend so much, both for his work locally and for supporting me in this work in the Chamber and the House. He is an absolutely fantastic campaigner for the menopause and for women.
Psychologically, none of us likes to be reminded that we are growing old. For women, however, the menopause provides irrefutable evidence that our biological clock has ticked. While men can, and do, continue to reproduce into their old age, we cannot. With that loss, we face a grieving process. Our species has evolved to reproduce itself, and women’s bodies have evolved to carry out childbirth and child-rearing. Aeons of our cultural norms have been built upon that basic and irrefutable fact. Despite advances in all areas of medicine, I do not see men being able to conceive children or breastfeed any time soon, so the loss of those capabilities comes weighted with deep-seated and unexpected emotions. At the same time that we are attempting to grapple with those emotions, we find ourselves beset with a huge laundry list of symptoms and facing at best, indifference and ignorance, and at worst, downright hostility, mockery and discrimination while we attempt to help ourselves.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Like the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), I have much interest in this, not only because it involves health issues that I am responsible for, but because sometimes things are pretty close to home. Does the hon. Lady not agree that the support that is needed for women who are going through tremendous changes in their bodies is not readily and sustainably available at GP surgeries, and that funding needs to be allocated to support groups, like the ones that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman referred to, to ensure that the mental and physical health of ladies going through the menopause is readily available? That is very important.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for making that valid point. I will talk about some of those issues, and he makes the really good point that these issues also affects men who are living with women as they go through the menopause.
I became a campaigner for the menopause by accident. For me, the start of the menopause came as I took my seat in this place. I attributed the almost constant migraines, the exhaustion, stress, insomnia, and the more than usual irritation with my ever-stoic husband, down to the new job, and the fact that my parliamentary accommodation was just over the bridge from Big Ben. I was probably the only Member to rejoice when Big Ben ceased to chime all through the night, because believe me, I heard every single bong.
It was only when I started to seek treatment for the unbearable migraines that I discovered the link with the menopause, and I started on a process that led me to understand that, very sadly, I was far from alone. I hesitated before speaking out about this personal issue, because I feared that in this place I would be regarded negatively by some colleagues or gain an unwarranted stigma attached to me as a menopause campaigner. However, when I realised how many women are affected by this issue and how many fail to get the help they need, I realised that it fell to me to speak out—to speak for people who cannot be here. And if I did not do it, who would?
I am pleased to say that this campaign, as we have just seen, has been universally welcomed by Members from across this House, including in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who has just left the Chamber, my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield).
Outside our four walls, this debate is being followed with a keen interest, and I thank everybody—I know that they are watching and that they are heartened to see that this issue is receiving the attention that it deserves, although there is much more to be done. There are too many people for me to mention them all personally, but I particularly thank Dr Louise Newson—the menopause doctor—for her advice and knowledge on this matter. She operates a specialist menopause clinic in Stratford-upon-Avon and is an expert in this field. Her help has been invaluable.
Almost all women will be affected by the menopause at some point in their life. Most will experience symptoms between the ages of 45 and 55, but early menopause can also occur. For one in 100 women, this natural ageing process can begin before the age of 40, and early onset menopause occurs in one in 1,000 women under 30. In other words, it is very common, yet many are told they are too young to be menopausal, which is clearly wrong.
The duration and severity of symptoms vary from woman to woman. Generally, symptoms start a few months or years before periods stop—this is known as the perimenopause—and can persist for some time afterwards. On average, symptoms last for four years after the last period, but about one in 10 women experience them for up to 12 years. About eight in 10 women will have additional symptoms for some time before and after their periods stop, including hot flushes, night sweats, difficulty sleeping, palpitations, poor concentration, memory problems, low mood, anxiety and depression.
The common symptoms are numerous and varied. Every woman’s experience is unique. For example, I never experienced hot flushes or night sweats, but I certainly did experience other symptoms, and that was a problem for me, because I did not realise I was menopausal. That is the case for many other women. I remember considering whether I could even continue my job, and I know from correspondence I have received that countless other women struggle to manage the menopause however it affects their lives. A survey from West Midlands police showed that 21% of policewomen had given up work due to their menopausal symptoms.
Of course, the menopause does not affect just women. Every man in the country either lives with, works with or is related to a woman, and employers are affected and will continue to be affected.
Eddie Hughes
It is vital that men understand the symptoms and the challenges women face during this time of their lives and that they offer support, not just at home but in the workplace.
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend again for that really good point. In fact, menopausal women are the fastest-growing demographic in the workforce. It is vital, therefore, that employers step up and produce menopause policies to help women going through this process.
There are many ways in which society can better support menopausal women, but we must look also for ways in which menopausal women can better help themselves. Of course, education can help. We can raise awareness of these issues in numerous ways—for example, through sex and relationships education in schools. We teach young girls about reproduction and periods, about contraception and relationships, and we ought at that stage to educate them about what happens in the menopause.
Employers also have an important part to play and can introduce supportive policies in the workplace, and I am pleased that many large employers are starting to lead the way in this respect. The best known local employer I have worked with is the West Midlands police, who are introducing creative and groundbreaking policies. Having spoken to women who have worked with them to introduce those policies, I know they faced considerable barriers when they first started to bring these conversations into the workplace—this very traditional, male-dominated environment—and yet they persisted, and now they find that their events and support groups are oversubscribed and that men really want to help and get involved to support their female colleagues.
Jim Shannon
I mentioned in my earlier intervention the importance of access to GP surgeries. Every lady who has this problem goes to her doctor. That is a fact. At that stage, there is an opportunity to address the issue. I hope that the Minister will respond to this point—she always does respond very positively—because there needs to be some extra assistance in GP surgeries to help the ladies whenever they present with these problems.
Rachel Maclean
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have heard that point from so many women who have written to me, and I know that many of the women watching right now will have had the experience going to their GP and not getting the necessary support.
I will now talk about what I think the Government, the NHS and GPs can do to better support women experiencing, and sometimes struggling to cope with, the menopause. Central to the treatment available is hormone replacement therapy—or HRT, as it is commonly known. In essence, by addressing the hormonal imbalance resulting from the ageing process, HRT can address a wide variety of different symptoms experienced by menopausal women, and this is explicitly confirmed in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on the menopause. It is recommended to treat vasomotor, psychological and urogenital symptoms, as well as altered sexual function resulting from ageing.
Despite these guidelines having been published in November 2015—three years ago—only 10% of women are actually taking HRT. Time and again, I hear about women who have been turned away from their GPs—as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned a moment ago—and not given this effective medicine, on spurious grounds. They are told, for example, that because their periods have not stopped they are not menopausal. However, it is suitable to prescribe the medicine at that point. It is not expensive, it is safe, and it has a transformative effect.
Back in 2015, when these guidelines were introduced, they were heralded as a great step forward, but that, sadly, has not materialised. Many attribute the problem to a 2002 study which found some causation between HRT and breast cancer, but the 2015 NICE guidelines are crystal clear: for the vast majority of women, the benefits of HRT greatly outweigh any risks. The guidelines state explicitly that it does not increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, that there is no association between developing type 2 diabetes and taking HRT, and that there is no evidence to suggest an increased risk of developing dementia. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary.
Even in individual cases in which cardiovascular concerns may discourage the prescription of HRT, oestrogen in the form of a skin patch or gel is available, and carries no risk of clots. That is the form of HRT that I am taking, and, combined with migraine treatment, it is helping me enormously. In fact, evidence shows that HRT lowers the risk of heart attacks by 50% and the risk of osteoporosis by 50%, and that the risk of depression is also reduced. Moreover, women on HRT are less likely to put on weight, because weight increases during the menopause. It is therefore clear that HRT brings public health benefits.
HRT with oestrogen alone is associated with no change in the risk of developing breast cancer. Body-identical progesterone does not carry a risk of breast cancer for the first five years, and even after that point the risk is very low. The risk of developing breast cancer is much higher in women who drink just a couple of glasses of wine every day, or who are overweight.
Sadly, despite all that evidence, the media have misreported and whipped up fear about HRT for a number of years, and many people, including women and healthcare professionals, are still misinformed as a result. The issue is further augmented by the fact that very few GPs and nurses receive enough training, undergraduate or postgraduate education about the menopause. That has led to a general lack of awareness and misinformation in the medical community. It is clear that many GPs are not following the NICE guidelines.
That negligence is a problem, because many women are being sent away with no support, or are being mistakenly treated for misdiagnosed conditions such as depression and anxiety. Research that Dr Louise Newson has undertaken and shared with me shows that it is common for GPs to prescribe, for example, risperidone or diazepam rather than HRT. Of the thousands of menopausal women whom she surveyed, some 66%—a truly staggering figure—had been given antidepressants rather than HRT. Those expensive and addictive medicines are, of course, effective in treating certain conditions, but in menopause cases there is no evidence that they improve low mood or anxiety. Both types of HRT, oestrogen and progesterone, cost the NHS about £4 a month, so they are low-cost in comparison with antidepressants. They are highly effective, and pose a very low risk.
The benefits of HRT are clear, the size of the issue is unavoidable, and the action that needs to be taken is simple. The health service must give better training to GPs and other health workers, and must increase their awareness of the benefits of HRT in treating the menopause. The myths must be dispelled, and I hope that many millions more women will then see the benefit. Society, including men and employers, will also see the benefit, and the health service should benefit as well. Women who take HRT are less likely to attend GP surgeries, and effective HRT treatment removes the need for unnecessary referrals to specialists such as cardiologists or psychologists. That would undoubtedly relieve pressure on those already burdened specialisms. Medicine and diagnostic costs would be also reduced.
A few weeks ago, I held a productive roundtable discussion about this issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I am pleased that the Department will be considering what more it can do to support menopausal women. I was encouraged by my hon. Friend’s commitment and her pledge to engage in further work with us. However, I implore the Department to prioritise that work, because it affects every woman.
I am keen to hear the Minister’s remarks, and I look forward to working closely with her. Women across the UK, including in my constituency, are struggling and being denied help. That is so wrong when there is a cheap, effective and low-risk treatment already available. I am glad we have started to break the stigma in this place and I thank all who have supported me in this campaign.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on securing this debate on health services and the menopause, and I want to start by celebrating the fact that we are discussing this subject. For too long the things that only affect women have been taboo; they have been brushed under the carpet—they have not been discussed in this place. One of the most magnificent of the many great side-effects of having a more gender-equal place is that we begin to discuss these subjects and those last taboos get addressed properly. It is wonderful to hear and see the men present in this Chamber who also care passionately about this subject; that must be celebrated too.
My hon. Friend has been a passionate and highly effective campaigner for improved awareness of the menopause and better support for women who are dealing with some of the difficult symptoms. I am very grateful and supportive of her work on this issue; in my eyes she is an absolute hero. I believe it is vital that we provide effective support and treatment for women with menopausal symptoms. It is of the utmost importance that we continue to work to improve that and to tackle the misconceptions attached to the menopause.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of HRT and expressed her concern that some GPs are not prescribing or recommending it to women who need it. No two menopauses are exactly alike and GPs play an important role in ensuring patients are given treatment that is appropriate to them. It is worth bearing in mind that the menopause is a natural stage in a woman’s life, and that many women will experience the menopause without troublesome symptoms or the need for treatment. Where symptoms do arise, HRT can be very effective in relieving them, and GPs should give menopausal women information about HRT as a treatment option, highlighting its risks, if they see that there are any, and its benefits. However, every patient is different and HRT might not be suitable for everyone. It is not the only treatment for menopausal symptoms, and GPs should also, where appropriate, talk women through all the non-hormonal and non-pharmaceutical treatments that are available.
My hon. Friend is right to say that there has been real confusion in the past about the safety of HRT. Concerns were raised in the early 2000s, as she mentioned, when a study said it was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and heart disease. As a result, many women were advised by their doctors to come off HRT and the number of HRT users in the UK fell significantly. I cannot stress strongly enough that, as my hon. Friend has noted, the evidence base has since become clearer and the NICE guidance on the menopause is clear that HRT is a perfectly safe treatment in the majority of cases, and in most cases there is a far lower health risk in taking HRT than in drinking a couple of glasses of wine every day or in obesity, as my hon. Friend said.
The NICE guidance on the menopause also provides GPs with advice on how to recognise symptoms of the menopause. This guidance has helped prevent misdiagnosis, and my hon. Friend spoke very powerfully about how sometimes menopause can be mistaken for depression, which is incredibly worrying. Improving treatment of the symptoms of the menopause is also important.
We are also taking a range of other actions to improve support for women experiencing menopausal symptoms. This includes the work of the royal colleges, which of course play an important role in the education, training and professional development of healthcare professionals who treat women with menopausal symptoms. The Royal College of General Practitioners has produced a toolkit that includes learning resources for GPs on diagnosis and management of symptoms of the menopause. In addition, the Royal College of Nursing, in collaboration with the British Menopause Society, has produced a guide providing information for nurses who wish to become specialists in the menopause. That is very important, too. The Royal College is also aiming to develop a GP specialty that focuses on women’s health, which will be warmly welcomed.
Correct diagnosis and treatment of symptoms of the menopause are important, but we also have to focus on improving wider awareness of the menopause. An important part of this will be to have more open conversations around the menopause, so that we can start tackling the taboos that are attached to it. Taking this wider, bigger-picture approach is vital, given the huge impact that the menopause can have on all parts of a woman’s life.
In raising awareness and tackling taboos, we need to ensure that we reach out to all demographics, including boys and men. I cannot help thinking that if a similar hormonal transition affected men for an average of four years in the second half of their life, we would never hear the end of it—[Interruption.] Present company excepted, of course. As it is, the menopause has become something of a taboo, and we have to get over that. That is why it is so incredibly faith-restoring to see these incredibly liberated and forward-thinking gentlemen in the Chamber tonight, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who has talked about the menopause café that he runs. He should be championed for that. I was also pleased to see that the debate that was held on world menopause day last October was called by a male MP. These men are champions, in my eyes, and they deserve to be celebrated.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch mentioned, education is absolutely key to promoting awareness and understanding of the menopause. The Government are making relationships education compulsory in primary schools and relationships and sex education compulsory in secondary schools. The underpinning focus in these subjects is to equip young people to develop positive attitudes to health, relationships and wellbeing. Schools will then have a really good opportunity to improve pupils’ understanding and awareness of the menopause.
Hon. Members will be aware that women represent 51% of the UK population and 44% of our workforce. They play a vital role in the nation’s health, but they do not always receive the most timely or appropriate healthcare. My hon. Friend mentioned the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who is the Minister with responsibility for mental health, inequalities, and suicide prevention. She is doing sterling work on this issue, and she has set up a women’s health taskforce. This taskforce will work to ensure that women receive timely and appropriate care in relation to a whole range of issues, and as part of its upcoming early work, it will consider the menopause.
This work will be informed by a collaborative discussion that will be led by the brilliant chief medical officer and include the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, a number of academics who work in menopause research and GPs who specialise in the menopause. These discussions will feed into the taskforce’s wider objectives: to empower women to speak more confidently; to raise awareness and break taboos around women’s health problems; and to improve the access, quality and experience of care for women. I hope that that will help to address some of the important issues that my hon. Friend has raised today, and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care will be absolutely delighted to work closely with her on the taskforce’s developing work around the menopause, because she has done such sterling work in this area so far.
We need to ensure that workplaces provide the necessary and appropriate support for women. A recent study found that 41% of women aged 50 to 60 said that the menopause had affected their job, but that 70% did not tell their employer about their symptoms. This demonstrates the work that needs to be done to move beyond shame and silence to an open conversation about the menopause, because half the population will go through it. Giving better support to those women in work is not only right but fundamentally good for the economy. Women over 50 are now one of the fastest growing groups of employees. They have invaluable skills and experience, which means that they are incredibly difficult to replace. We should be looking to support them to stay in work whenever we can.
I am particularly proud to be responding to this debate tonight not only because I am hurtling very fast towards the menopause myself but because, when I was Minister for Women and Equalities, I chaired the very first parliamentary roundtable on awareness and taboos around the menopause in the workplace. This was the first ever meeting in Parliament that brought together important stakeholders and interested parties to discuss this important issue. We heard some incredible evidence. I remember one lady telling us that she had had to leave her workplace because all she wanted was a desktop fan to help her deal with the hot flushes, but the company would not let her have one and so lost an employee with incredible experience and huge amounts of skill, which just makes no sense at all.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her positive response. There is an old proverb that a problem shared is a problem halved, and the Minister has clearly indicated a method of doing that. I encourage her to get that message out across GP surgeries, education and all the relevant bodies.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is an enlightened man. The work that we did at the very first roundtable led to an evidence review that was published in 2017, which talked about raising awareness and about the effects on women’s economic participation. The review led to the Women’s Business Council developing a toolkit to enable employers to support their employees more effectively, and I think we can all agree that that can be nothing but a good thing.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the Minister both for the measures she is outlining and for the work that she did originally. Is she aware that the menopause used to be called the silent passage? The work that she and the others in the Chamber tonight are doing is helping to bring some sound to this passage, which can only be a benefit for every member of society.
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is right. I had not heard that description before, but it sums up what we are talking about.
The toolkit that the Women’s Business Council produced when I was in the Government Equalities Office sets out positive action that employers can take around flexible working and improving awareness and understanding around the menopause. It also provides practical and often simple adjustments that employers can make. We also support actions taken by individual organisations to raise awareness. My hon. Friend mentioned some wonderful examples of such work, including at West Midlands police and the Bank of England. I pay tribute to them and encourage more employers to think about what more they can do to support women through the menopause.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The menopause is about valuing people, equality and rights. We have shown we can make progress on such issues elsewhere, and we must and will do the same here.
Question put and agreed to.
Recall of MPs Act 2015: Member for Peterborough
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deferred Divisions
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Supplementary Provisions and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government (Structural And Boundary Changes) (Supplementary Provisions and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019.
Last year, Parliament approved legislation to establish Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, known as BCP, Dorset Council, East Suffolk Council, and Somerset West and Taunton Council in place of the existing 13 councils in those areas. Today, we are considering the fourth statutory instrument consequential to that legislation in order to effect the practical success of those new councils. If approved and made, the order will ensure that all the necessary technical and definitional arrangements are in place so that effective local government continues in those areas. We have worked closely with all the councils concerned; their officials have commented on drafts of the order and have confirmed to us by email that it fully meets all local requirements.
The order provides for several items of business. First, it will establish charter trustees for the unparished parts of the existing boroughs of Bournemouth, Poole and Taunton as the bodies in which the historical rights and privileges associated with those areas are to be vested. For example, Bournemouth and Poole have the historical rights to have mayors and Poole has the right to a mayor and a sheriff; likewise, the Taunton charter trustees will have the right of a mayor for Taunton. I am sure members of the Committee will be delighted to know that historical regalia, such as maces, will also vest in the charter trustees.
Secondly, the order vests the market rights in Bournemouth and Poole to the BCP council, allowing the new council to continue to hold the rights to run charter markets. Thirdly, the order provides for the statutory definition of the area of the ceremonial county of Dorset to be amended in the Lieutenancies Act 1997 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. I am sure that no members of this Committee were present to pass those pieces of legislation, but I know they are held in good heart today.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am happy to confirm that I was not here in 1887. Lichfield is one of the very few cities in the country—only 13, I believe—to have a sheriff, complete with two gold maces going back to the reigns of William and Mary and, before that, Queen Mary. Does the Minister recognise the importance of ceremonial and its value in civic life?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I commend him and the people of Lichfield for maintaining those civic traditions, and of course I agree that they are an important part of our civic society. Although what we are considering today is technical in nature, the underlying substance of what we are doing is vital to ensure that local civic traditions are not lost when local government reorganises and they can be passed appropriately to the right local civic bodies. I am delighted that we are enabling that for the people of the areas that will benefit from the order.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and his team for the work they have done in support of Dorset’s local government reorganisation. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is apposite. When proposals for change are first mooted, people often say, “This will throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will lose our sense of history and place.” The fact that these things can be retained in a modern reformed setting, melding the old and the new, is an important message that I hope the Minister carries forward to other councils.
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued support for these measures. He embodies the best of the traditional and the modern world, ensuring that local areas embrace the future with efficiency, a dynamic approach to local government and a desire to serve their constituents better, while retaining the great traditions of those areas. I am delighted that he is here to see that come into practice.
Moving on to slightly more mundane—but no less important—matters, the order fourthly makes provision to ensure that the local government pension fund maintained by Dorset County Council, along with all the property rights and liabilities in respect of that fund, will vest in the new Dorset Council. That fund will be the pension fund for employees of that council and of the new BCP council, as well as employees of all other employers in that fund.
Fifthly, the order makes provisions to amend the Weymouth Port Health Authority Order 2017, so that references to the joint board made up of the abolished authorities of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, Purbeck District Council and West Dorset District Council will instead refer to Dorset Council, which will be the sole authority for the area following reorganisation. Finally, the order makes provision for the existing social housing finance and housing revenue account arrangements to continue for the new councils of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, East Suffolk, and Somerset West and Taunton.
All the provisions are sensible and necessary consequential changes in the light of the establishment of the new councils, which Parliament has already approved. They will ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements, and continued effective local government in the areas covered. I commend the order to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in these wonderful morning Delegated Legislation Committees.
The order has been a long time in the making and we are towards the back end of the process, so there is no point spending the morning going through its history, but I have some questions to ask of the Minister. First of all, I welcome a principle and a culture that is not about changing the identity of a people and a place, but is instead about administration in an area. I just hope that when the changes have been made and the new authorities are fully functioning, that culture is followed through in everything the authorities do. We cannot believe that administrative boundaries are anything like the historical, trusted, valuable identities that people feel.
Let us be honest: there have been a number of Delegated Legislation Committees considering reorganisation in shire areas, and the reason why councils in those areas are considering reorganisation is their financial foundation. They are struggling to meet the increasing demand for adult social care and children’s services; their budgets are being hit year on year, in the same way as every local authority in England. They are increasing council tax, often to the maximum, but that is still not enough to replace the grant that the Government have taken away. The Government have refused to meet the social care, children’s services and homelessness demands that the Local Government Association has highlighted, and I am afraid that unless we deal with the crux of the issue, which is that £8 billion funding gap, reorganisation will not fix the problem. It will save some money, but it will not save the important neighbourhood services that make places what they are.
We cannot have a situation in England, which will be the outlier in the UK, in which councils are in effect just providers of social care and almost nothing else matters. That is not why councils come into existence or why councillors stand for election. People stand for election as councillors because they believe passionately in the power of their place and their communities. The idea that we should starve them of the resource they need to make those places better is, I am afraid, simply not in the spirit of a thriving Britain. As we approach Brexit—who knows when that will be—that demand for a better Britain has not been laid out and the offer has not been made to the people of this country. I strongly believe that local government is a foundation on which we will build a stronger country, but that cannot be done when we starve it of essential resources.
Obviously, we are embarking on the fair funding review, which will seek to address some of these issues. We know that the Government are keen for rural service unit costs to be taken into account, and Labour welcomes that, although we have repeatedly observed that the removal of deprivation as a factor in a number of service areas is not in the spirit of a fair funding review. A genuine review of council funding that takes into account all funding pressures must take both rural service unit costs and deprivation into account. Some services will be more expensive in rural areas; some will be more expensive in urban areas; and for many services, whether the area is rural or urban will have no bearing on cost.
In this reorganisation, for example, one of the biggest pressures is adult social care and children’s services, yet in the Government’s 2014 review of unit costs adult social care was not found to be more expensive in rural areas. It is assumed that the geography requires more downtime, with staff travelling from one appointment to the next, but when costs such as staffing and fewer children’s placements are taken into account, it is cheaper to deliver social care in rural than in urban areas. Given that is the lion’s share of the budget pressure for those local authorities, it prompts the question whether a fair funding review will fix the foundations of funding in this area. I press that point: what is the Government’s vision for fair funding? How do they intend to address the weak foundations that this reorganisation is being built on?
There are also the practicalities that are not often debated in this place but are really important. When many local authorities are brought together, they inherit different cultures, ways of working and staffing structures, which will of course change. They will also inherit different ways of collecting data, with different systems, programs and ways of recording jobs for a range of services. It would be comforting to hear that the Government have considered those points in the reorganisation, to ensure that, in the transition of many different data programs retained by councils, essential information is not lost.
Data and information technology have moved on but can be a significant bugbear. When I was council leader in Oldham, I often got the blame for the 1974 reorganisation; I had to point out that I was not born then but it was still a bugbear. When the councils reorganised, many district councils destroyed a lot of social care records as part of the transition, as district town halls closed to form the new metropolitan borough.
We need to ensure that, in the transition to a new authority, those practical matters are taken into account and that there is proper funding in place to ensure that it can be done efficiently.
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful comments. To start with finance, I do not wish to try the Committee’s patience by rehashing the debate on local government finance in the Chamber last week. Suffice it to say that we believe we are supporting and empowering local government to deliver its three major tasks. One is to support the most vulnerable in society, the second is to grow local economies, because that is ultimately the only way to pay for the services we rely on, and the third is to build strong communities.
The range of support provided by central Government —pothole funds, the high street fund, business rates retention pilots, almost £650 million more for social care—shows that we are a Government committed to supporting local government in pursuing those vital goals for all our constituents. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people in local government deserve praise for the passion with which they serve their communities. They come into it to realise the three goals I outlined.
What is important is not just the money but the quality of the services we provide. That is why the Government are relentlessly focused on not only keeping taxes as low as possible for our residents but ensuring that we learn from each other, and we see local councillors striving to do exactly that. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, our purpose is to ensure that local government is fit for the future. It is not about being told by Ministers in this place what to do, but about local councillors talking to each other and deciding themselves how best to serve their constituents.
Of course, saving money is part of that and is not to be sniffed at. I do not think we should accuse local government of not looking for ways to save money. Ultimately, the taxes that fund local government are paid for by all our residents. It is right that if we can do things better and cheaper we should look for those opportunities, but that cannot be the only reason for local government reorganisation.
During all the debates we have had on this topic, we have heard many passionate contributions, including from hon. Members from those areas such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, who spoke at great length about the various benefits that this local government reorganisation would bring to his area and constituents. We very much support those aspirations and ambitions that local councillors have for their areas.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton talked about data and digital. I agree with him that that is important. It is not just about the nuts and bolts of integration, which I am pleased to report seems to be going very well on the ground—the go live date for all the new councils is 1 April 2019, and all councils are making excellent progress towards being ready to roll on that day. More broadly, the importance of using data to benefit our constituents is vital.
I am delighted that this Government have backed local government with a new £7.5 million fund to create digital innovation projects across the country. All types of councils are benefiting, from unitaries to urban areas to shire districts to shire counties, and we are finding through that process that councils are collaborating. This is not party political; it is about councils working together and learning from each other, building data platforms that will benefit our constituents, finding ways to streamline and reduce the cost of technology, and ensuring that we can use that information to target services at those who really need them and, in an ideal world, prevent things from happening in the first place. Of course we are in the early days of that revolution, but there are many good examples. There is one close to the area of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, in Stockport Council, which I had the pleasure to visit on one of my first ministerial visits. It was digital council of the year last year and is a great example for others to learn from.
I am delighted that all these councils are embracing the future with optimism. I am delighted that this Government are able to support these locally led and locally delivered plans for reorganisation. I look forward to seeing more than 1 million residents benefit from the changes that we are approving today.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018
Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
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 Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018 and the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018.
Kelly Tolhurst
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The draft statutory instruments were laid before the House on 14 January 2019 and on 31 October 2018 respectively. They are part of a package of measures that the Government have promised to introduce to make sure that we are prepared in the event that we leave the EU without a deal. It is important to remember throughout the debate that the changes will not be needed if a deal is secured.
The statutory instruments under consideration amend employment law to reflect the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. New directives agreed in the EU are transposed into UK law. The act of the UK leaving the EU therefore does not remove those rights, which are already in UK law. By passing the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, Parliament gave the Government the ability to ensure that necessary changes can be made to keep the statute book in proper working order.
I can confirm that the SIs before the Committee make only minor changes to language to ensure that existing regulations will reflect the fact that the UK is no longer a member of the EU. Those changes are necessary to ensure that the statute book is accurate and clear. It is important that businesses, employees and citizens have clarity regarding their rights and responsibilities.
During the passage of the 2018 Act, some hon. Members raised concerns about the potential for the Government to use some of the powers granted by that Act to make more fundamental changes. I assure the Committee that the Government are not making any changes to employment rights or employment policy through these regulations. The Prime Minister, the Business Secretary and many other colleagues have been clear that there will be no roll-back on workers’ rights when we leave the EU.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Does the Minister not concede that, as a result of the regulations, in the event of no deal, employees and workers in the United Kingdom will not be able to set up a European works council?
Kelly Tolhurst
If the hon. Gentleman allows me to make some progress, I will come to that point. We should aim not to sensationalise the issue, but to provide clear answers to the public. It is our responsibility to be the guide during this unprecedented time.
The Committee will be aware of the programme of reforms that the Government are already implementing to strengthen workers’ rights and we are delivering on our commitments through the “Good Work Plan”. We do not need to be in the EU to have strong workers’ rights or to enhance them in the future. Indeed, we will continue to deliver the good work reforms after the UK has left the EU.
Far from being content with EU minimum standards, the UK has gone beyond them in a number of areas. Our maternity entitlements are nearly three times greater than the EU standard. In the UK, we offer 52 weeks of maternity leave, of which 39 weeks are with pay; the EU requires only 14 weeks of paid leave. We give fathers and partners the statutory right to paternity leave and pay—an entitlement that the EU is only now starting to consider. We allow eligible parents to share paid leave and thus caring responsibilities in the first year following birth or adoption; the EU does not provide for that right. We have given all employees with 26 weeks’ qualifying service a statutory right to request flexible working; EU law allows workers to make a request only if they are returning from parental leave. One of the EU’s own agencies, Eurofound, ranks the UK as the second best country in the EU for workplace well- being, behind only Sweden, and the best for workplace performance.
In our future outside the EU, the political declaration on our future relationship states that we will build on the withdrawal agreement commitment not to reduce our shared standards or regress from existing EU legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, we are prepared to commit to asking Parliament whether it wishes to follow suit whenever the EU changes its employment standards. I hope that that provides assurance to the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed to protecting and enhancing workers’ rights.
The statutory instruments are an important and necessary part of the work to protect rights in the event that we leave the EU without a deal. Of course I hope that the regulations will not need to come into effect, and that an agreement can be reached with the EU so they can be revoked.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain why the Government initially thought that the regulations should be subject to the negative procedure and not debated at all? We are obviously pleased that the Government changed their mind when the European Statutory Instruments Committee asked for the change.
Kelly Tolhurst
The statutory instruments that were laid subject to the negative procedure, which was changed by that Committee, relate particularly to Northern Ireland. They were upgraded to be debated, so we have the opportunity to debate all four sets of regulations in Committee today.
Although I hope that the regulations will not need to come into effect, because I hope that we can reach an agreement, in the event of no deal it will be vital that they are enacted. Failure to pass these largely technical regulations would result in uncertainty about workers’ rights and employers’ obligations, which could lead to disruption for business and citizens and an increased risk of litigation, which is in no one’s interest.
Against that background, I will explain one set of provisions about which hon. Members may have concerns. The Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make changes to the rules on European works councils. Businesses and trade unions in the UK value the opportunity for employee engagement and consultation that the councils provide, and the Government recognise and encourage those benefits. However, withdrawing from the EU without a deal will mean that the UK is no longer covered by EU rules on European works councils.
In that scenario, it would be for the EU to give UK workers the right to be represented on the councils. It is an unavoidable and unfortunate truth that there is no way for the UK unilaterally to ensure that workers in this country retain that right without a deal. There is also no way to replicate the European works council system only in the UK, as their purpose is to enable cross-border engagement. That requires the same rules in all countries, which requires a withdrawal agreement.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The assertion that the UK cannot make those provisions is incorrect. In relation to financial services, for instance, the UK is unilaterally making provisions on payment services and hoping that EU member states will do the same. Is the Minister aware that what she is saying is incoherent and inconsistent with what is happening in other policy areas?
Is the Minister not concerned that we are, yet again, in Committee considering statutory instruments without impact assessments, which does not allow adequate scrutiny? I have raised the issue several times. Can she give an assurance that the next time she or her colleagues come before such a Committee, they will provide an impact assessment?
Kelly Tolhurst
All the regulations have had de minimis statements applied. Obviously, they have been cleared through the better regulation framework, because if the impact exceeded the de minimis threshold, full impact assessments would have been made. All regulations or SIs that we bring to the House will be looked at by the Department in a deep way to assess the impact.
The hon. Lady’s first point was on other regulations that may be passing through the House at the moment and that are not directly related to the draft instruments. It is clear that we are retaining EU law. The changes we are considering are mostly technical, apart from the changes to the particular area I am referring to at the moment. Rightly, we want to see co-operation and agreement in the future where it is necessary and achievable. That is why the Government are determined to deliver a deal, so that we can have those reciprocal agreements with other member states.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being most generous in giving way. She will be aware that the European Parliament and European Commission are currently negotiating regulations for workers in the gig economy and for working parents that are far better and stronger than anything found in the UK Government’s “Good Work Plan”. Is the Minister saying to the Committee that if the European Parliament and European Commission agree those regulations, the UK Government will match them?
Kelly Tolhurst
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating an SI that will be enacted if we are in a no-deal situation on 29 March. As I have already outlined, whether we decide in a future no-deal situation to align our laws with the EU’s is a different matter, but I repeat: we have the “Good Work Plan” and we are going further. We are still a member of the European Union, so we still take part in those conversations happening in Europe.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I would like some clarity regarding the Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. Is it the Government’s policy to match future EU advancements in worker protection laws?
Kelly Tolhurst
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been very clear that we will not roll back workers’ rights. In fact, we have made an express commitment to go further. As I outlined, we already go further than Europe in many ways. We have been feeding into the development of EU thinking on some of these policies, as some of the work we have been doing in the UK is particularly good. We are determined to continue on our path. Our ambition is that the UK continues to be a great place to work, with those protections continuing to be afforded to the people employed in this country.
Our domestic regime for employee engagement and consultation will remain in place, and we will encourage businesses to continue to allow UK workers to be represented on a voluntary basis in European works councils. We are retaining as many of the existing rules as we can to enable that. All existing protections for workers and for their representatives on European works councils—even those there voluntarily—will be maintained. Approving the draft regulations is the only way to ensure that workers involved in European works councils are protected if there is no deal. They deliver on our commitments.
Another area I am aware that Members may be concerned about is the changes being made to the TUPE regulations. In a dynamic economy such as the UK’s, there will inevitably be takeovers and mergers and contracts changing hands, which is good for the prosperity of our country; the best companies outdo the worst. We recognise that that must be combined with strong protection for the workers in those companies, for whom a change of employer may be a stressful and difficult experience. TUPE regulations are central to protecting workers from suffering as a result of being transferred.
The draft regulations are an important part of EU-derived employment law, which we have committed to retain. In the UK, we have gone further than required under EU laws and we have extended these important protections to other groups of workers. Not only will we retain the elements from the EU, but we commit to retaining the gold-plating. Only by making the changes contained in the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations can we make sure that workers remain entitled to these protections. The changes are necessary to ensure that the Government retain our current powers to extend the protection provided by TUPE to other groups of workers. These powers have been used to protect workers where there is a change of service provider that is not also a business transfer—a situation that would not be covered by EU rules. That crucial gap can include situations where a business outsources or contracts out a service. The changes are technical, but it is important that I set Members’ minds at ease.
The current powers are defined with reference to the EU directive, which applies to the UK as a member state. When the UK is no longer a member state, if there is no deal the reference will no longer make sense, so the reference must be changed so that it does not rely on EU law. Without that change, the Government could not use the power or use this tool for protecting workers in future.
I have highlighted these areas as the other changes in the SIs are purely technical, made to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU. I assure the Committee that the amendments made through these SIs deliver on our workers’ rights commitments, thus providing clarity to employers, workers and businesses, and confidence that the Government are prepared for a no-deal scenario.
Kelly Tolhurst
In the event of a deal situation, the SIs that have been laid and passed can be revoked, referred, or brought to a following end-date, so there is a range of options on the table in a deal situation. We have been passing the no-deal SIs, particularly those before the Committee today, to make sure that we are ready if we leave the European Union on 29 March without a deal. It is imperative that we have regulations in place to ensure that we have a functioning statute book and are able to operate in a correct way.
Kelly Tolhurst
I do not know the particular SIs that the hon. Lady is referring to, so I cannot comment on them. All I am commenting on are the ones that I have in front of me today.
Ms Eagle
Some provisions in the regulations that are scheduled to come into force came into force at the beginning of last December. Will the Minister explain why it was felt necessary to bring them into force well ahead of our leaving the European Union and then apply them retrospectively, which is not a good principle of law?
Kelly Tolhurst
As I have already outlined to the hon. Lady, the SIs that she is–
Kelly Tolhurst
That may be, but the measures that she is referring to have not been highlighted. I am not aware of the ones that the hon. Lady is referring to. I am referring to the SI that is in front of me today.
Kelly Tolhurst
I will happily write to the Committee if the hon. Lady outlines to me the SIs that became active on 1 December 2018, so that I can give her and the rest of the Committee further clarification on that.
It would be unacceptable not to provide clarity to businesses and workers, and I encourage the Committee to approve the instruments. I commend them to the Committee.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), who has had a family bereavement. I am sure the Committee sends its condolences.
The Minister’s introduction presented the regulations as a necessary tidying-up exercise to remove unnecessary references to EU directives in important areas of workers’ rights, such as maternity leave, part-time work, fixed-term contracts and so on—I think she used the term “minor” to describe the effect of the legislation. On one level, that is understandable—we need our laws to be aligned with reality—but it seems at odds with the Prime Minister’s stated aim of protecting workers’ rights. From the removal of those powers, one can only conclude that the Government do not intend to match our EU counter- parts in terms of employment protection. The Committee will note that I asked the Minister about that and I do not think we had any confirmation that it is Government policy.
The regulations do not just remove our ability to keep pace with the EU but remove one area altogether. The Minister has already referred to it, so the Committee will not be surprised to hear that I am talking about European works councils, which are an important part of workplace democracy and a vital mechanism for giving a voice to the employees of multinational companies.
The Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 set out the rules governing European works councils. They say that where a company is based in two or more member states and has more than 1,000 employees, a European works council can be set up if one is requested. The regulations provide for the procedure to set up the council and a series of rights for employee representatives. Many of the information and consultation rights and protections are stronger than those under national legislation—for example, in relation to time off for workers’ representatives and the right to use experts and to undergo training. Those rights will be lost in a no-deal scenario.
Article 1 of the EU’s recast directive on European works councils anticipates the possibility of works council agreements that include non-EU countries and encourages them to proceed on a voluntary basis to enable workers’ representatives to participate. For example, the European works councils of companies operating in Switzerland often include Switzerland in their scope and may include Swiss representatives as members. However, the regulations do not appear to make provision for works councils to continue to include the UK in their scope on a voluntary basis, even though some European works councils have already amended their agreements to enable them to continue to work with UK representatives after Brexit.
In the regulations, the Government seek to retain certain aspects of the European works council scheme for councils set up before exit day, whenever that turns out to be. We welcome the fact that the enforcement framework, various employee representative rights and protections, and the confidential information protections are preserved for existing European works councils. There are also provisions to ensure that existing European works councils can continue to operate.
The concern, however, which we have already referred to, is that no new councils will be set up and that the right to request information on employee numbers, the provisions governing the setting up of a negotiating body, and the process and content of works councils and information and consultation procedure agreements will be lost. That clearly constitutes a loss of valuable workers’ rights in contravention of the Prime Minister’s promise to maintain existing workers’ rights at current levels.
The opportunity for workers to participate in discussions with their European colleagues on company-wide issues is valued by businesses, employees and their representatives. It can include opportunities for the workforce to be included in strategic multinational decisions about jobs, investment and training. Employees and unions are concerned that if UK representatives lose their place at the table, there will be a risk to UK jobs and investment.
In the event of a no deal, we need a commitment to continue to support and facilitate future voluntary UK worker participation in European works councils, as anticipated by article 1 of the recast directive, by keeping in place existing rights and protections for UK representatives on European works councils after Brexit. This will ensure that, in future, UK worker reps joining new or existing councils will continue to have their current rights and protections, including the right to paid time off to attend such meetings, as currently set out in regulations 25 to 27, and a right to training, as set out in regulation 19B. In our view, the draft regulations need to be amended to cover at least those basic work- place protections. Failure to do so would mean not honouring the Prime Minister’s clear commitments in this area.
On a more technical point, as alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, the draft regulations are supposed to come into force on exit day, with the exception of certain provisions. The Minister needs to explain the need for that distinction.
I also have concerns about the lack of a Government statement on their timetable for revoking the regulations, in full or in part, should a withdrawal agreement with the EU be concluded. The draft regulations do not provide for the method by which they would be revoked. The unique circumstances that we currently face could involve considerable numbers of statutory instruments being repealed or revoked in a short space of time. The nature of the revocation is an important matter that we need clarity on from the Minister. I hope she agrees that, if a withdrawal agreement is secured, the draft regulations will not be needed subsequently, including in a transition period or in any backstop, if that is where we end up.
The second draft instrument proposes to alter the Secretary of State’s power under section 38 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 to provide TUPE protection to workers not ordinarily covered by those regulations, which typically include what are colourfully known in the directive as administrative reorganisations of public administrative authorities and the service provision changes that the Minister referred to.
I understand the need to remove the reference to the EU, but I do not understand why, as part of that process, the Government intend to water down TUPE protections, which it seems will be the inevitable consequence of using the phrase “TUPE-like” in the draft regulations. That is the nub of it. Why is “like” in there at all? Surely it is superfluous. The protections will be “the same or similar”. Why can they not just be the same? That is what the Opposition want, and I think it is what the Prime Minister intended.
This change will cover a potentially huge number of employees, as it will apply to contracting out of public sector services, market testing, private finance initiatives, any other outsourcing and contracting exercises, second and subsequent generation contracting where the contract was first awarded from the public sector, and reorganisations and staff transfers from one part of the public sector to another. We cannot simply nod through the draft regulation because it could affect thousands of employees.
The risk is that “TUPE-like” could mean that TUPE protections on changes to terms and conditions may no longer apply. Will the Minister confirm that the power could be used to prevent employees’ terms and conditions from being preserved after a transfer? Is it not the case that the draft regulations will mean that current rules regarding protection against a dismissal connected to a transfer could also be disapplied? Is it not also correct that existing laws regarding information and consultation on a transfer could be ignored as a result of the draft regulations? On the latter point, the Trades Union Congress points out that the draft regulations do not expressly refer to employee representatives, be they trade unions or elected representatives. Will the Minister explain why that has been omitted?
I would also be grateful if the Minister clarified what would happen in a no-deal Brexit where employees of a UK company were involved in a TUPE transfer post 29 March to a new employer based somewhere within the EU. Would any employee wishing to enforce their rights against their new employer have to do so subject to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction? Normally, both employers in a TUPE litigation would be made parties to the case. Does that mean that UK companies could still be subject to ECJ jurisdiction post Brexit?
The other aspect of the second draft instrument is the proposed amendment to section 13 of the Working Families Act 2006, which will have the effect of removing the obligation to keep pace with EU law on annual leave entitlements. The enshrining in UK law of the working time directive was one of the finest achievements of the last Labour Government, bringing for the first time a legal entitlement to rest breaks and paid annual leave. I am not surprised that the Government are taking the opportunity to weaken the standing of the working time regulations, given that a number of current and former members of Government, including Cabinet members, have spoken at length about the supposed burdens of the regulations. The Opposition do not consider paid annual leave or daily and weekly rest breaks to be a burden. They are essential health and safety measures, as well as important parts of workplace protection.
It is clear from this instrument that the Government do not wish UK workers in future to enjoy parity with their European counterparts. This can be seen as the firing of the starting gun on the race to the bottom. Indeed, as the political declaration makes clear, employment standards are to be considered subordinate to open and fair competition. That is where we are heading.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the protection of employees but about those they serve? I refer to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by our hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) in the Chamber today, which was prompted by the deaths of people in Coventry as a result of a bus driver having worked inordinately long hours that week and the two weeks beforehand. That is an example of the importance of adequate employment legislation, not only for workers but for those they serve and their customers.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the working time directive was initially presented as health and safety legislation. It is not just about the worker’s health and providing adequate rest breaks, but about protecting those enjoying the benefits of their labour.
The Prime Minister may talk a good game but the evidence is that the words do not match the reality. Hers is the party that introduced employment tribunal fees, doubled the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and commissioned the atrocious Beecroft report, which proposed removing workplace protections altogether. I hope I will be forgiven for taking the Prime Minister’s comments in the Chamber yesterday about matching EU developments in employment rights with a pinch of salt, given what is before us today. Her track record does not inspire confidence, and these regulations do not do what she claims she wants to do. In fact, they do the opposite.
I say to the Minister that if the Government are genuinely trying to find common ground with Members across the House, these regulations should be withdrawn, because they do not do what the Prime Minister claims she wants to see happen. They represent the erosion of workplace protection and they must be opposed.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. We need to start from the moment the Government tried to sneak these measures through using the negative procedure when they tabled the regulations on 31 October 2018. I am astonished that that great bastion of democracy, the House of Lords, was the place to correct the Government’s disregard. If it were not for the concerns put by the Trades Union Congress, that is exactly what the Government would have done.
Ms Eagle
It is true that the House of Lords spotted that the regulations would better fit the affirmative procedure but, to cheer up the hon. Gentleman, so did the European Statutory Instruments Committee of the House of Commons, of which I am a member, when we had a look at the regulations. We also suggested to the Government that the regulations are not minor and should certainly be subject to fuller debate.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful for that clarification. I was previously a member of that Committee—I thought the Whip was punishing me for something—and that shows the Committee system plays an important role. The Minister needs to answer why these statutory instruments have different dates for different parts. For instance, 1 December has been mentioned; some mention exit day and some mention other dates. The Minister should clarify that. If there is no clarity on that matter, I do not see how the Committee can agree to these statutory instruments.
Although the Government have said that they want to keep workers’ rights, the clear concern is that what is happening in reality is a loss of guaranteed upgrades. A classic example of that, which I mentioned in my question to the Minister, is the regulations currently being negotiated between the European Parliament and the European Commission in respect of workers in the gig economy and working parents.
It is clear that, if there is no deal, UK workers will no longer be entitled to request the establishment of a European works council. That is important in many areas of the country. In the bus sector, for example, companies such as Arriva have workers across the European Union and in the UK. Arriva ran services in the west of Scotland before it pulled out, and its workers had to be offered jobs elsewhere in the European Union to continue their work.
The fact that UK workers will no longer have the opportunity to request the establishment of a European works council, in order to participate in discussions about company-wide issues with European colleagues, is very serious. Protections are clearly being weakened, because European law and the courts provide a protective backstop—I believe that phrase is in vogue—against EU workers’ rights law being weakened by future UK Governments.
That brings us to the issue of trust. The Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, and her answer to my question about what happens here if the European Union strengthens workers’ rights, mirrors what she said in her letter to the Leader of the Opposition: that there would be a vote in Parliament, and that the Government would not advocate matching those terms.
I asked that question of the Minister today, and I feel she did not guarantee that the Government would match those terms. Somehow it would be put to a vote, and workers across the UK would have to trust the Conservative party to enhance their workers’ rights— I do not think so.
I am sure the hon. Member for Wallasey will agree that those of us who were involved with the anti-trade union Act saw the real face of conservatism when it comes to workers’ rights and protections, and we remember the statements made in relation to workers’ rights by the great advocates of the leave campaign. The Secretary of State for International Trade said:
“It is too difficult to hire and fire”
people in the United Kingdom.
The reality is that these statutory instruments are badly drafted and offer no scope to keep United Kingdom law in line with EU law. As such, I will be voting against them.
Ms Eagle
It is a joy to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. I begin by thanking the Minister for agreeing with the recommendation of both the House of Lords and the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which considered this collection of eight different measures and asked the Government to think again about using the negative procedure. If the Government had their way, there would have been no debate whatsoever about any of these important matters.
The Minister told the Committee that these are just technical amendments, that there is nothing to see here and that we should all be happy not to be bothered by a series of tiny law changes. However, those of us who have been in the House a long time and know all about the general approach of the Conservative party to workers’ rights legislation want to check it out anyway. A little later, I will outline some things that it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify in her response.
Let us look at what these two sets of statutory instruments do. The first is for Northern Ireland, which of course does not have a functioning Executive at the moment, and therefore legislation is effectively being made for it without its direct say-so. The second set applies to the rest of the country: England, Wales and Scotland.
The European Statutory Instruments Committee noted that the regulations amend four employment Acts to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation implementing EU employment directives. That is good, one might think, but that is four employment Acts changed by this collection of legislation. The Committee also felt there is a policy vacuum in what will replace the powers being taken away.
Section 79(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is about the parental leave framework, and it will be repealed. Section 19(4) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 is about part-time work, and that will be repealed. Section 45(4) of the Employment Act 2002 is about conditions of employment, framework agreements on fixed-term work and the application of terms and conditions of employment and matters that arise because of the UK’s obligations under that particular EU directive. That will be repealed. Section 42(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which has provisions about information and consultation, will be repealed.
The Government could have done other things. They could have tweaked rather than repealed all those things. Why have they decided to repeal? Why have they decided to tweak in other ways, such as by saying “TUPE-like”, rather than just cutting and pasting existing requirements and protections into UK law? I am alarmed that the Government felt they could bring forward this legislation without the Minister coming here to give us a lot more information about the Government’s approach.
It is about not only putting the same rights into UK law, but saying a bit about the loss of updating rights for the future. What, for example, is the Government’s intention, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West has noted, on shadowing future rights that the EU may decide to grant its citizens, particularly in the gig economy? We know from experience that this Government have done little in the nearly nine years they have been in existence to aid and assist those who work in the gig economy. That has been left to unions such as the GMB, which has pursued Hermes through the courts to get those who work there the employment rights they should have been granted at the outset.
We know that other unions are pursuing employers such as Pimlico Plumbers and various other non-gig employers that are attempting to say that they do not have anyone working directly for them. Somehow all those people are self-employed and therefore have to pay for their own pensions and holiday pay. They do not get any sick pay or any other access to the basic protections we would expect every worker in the UK to get as a matter of common decency. Again, the Government have stood by and done absolutely nothing to protect those rights. They have made clucking noises about it and released the odd press release about how they are very concerned, but they have not done anything to make those rights accessible and available.
In fact, the coalition Government introduced employment tribunal fees, which effectively made it impossible for those with issues to enforce the rights they thought they had under UK law. They effectively dismantled what was left of the employment tribunal system by starving it of resources, so waiting lists were massively long and the only people who could really afford to get their statutory rights enforced at all were trade unions members who could afford to wait for a very long time and those who could risk their own money simply to try to get their basic rights enforced in the UK.
Of course, the Government also introduced the Beecroft report, which basically said that all maternity rights, and most employment rights, are a burden on business and ought to be abolished, and that everyone should fend for themselves.
It is very hard, looking at these transitions of EU regulations into the UK statute book, to take the reassurance of anyone from a Government with such a record that we can rely on the blandishments they might issue on the Floor of the House. We want to see proper law, proper debates and proper employment rights. We also wish to see an enhanced capacity for those organisations to allow workers to access their rights, thereby making those rights a reality.
So we come again to the Government’s record in that respect. The Trade Union Act 2016 made it virtually impossible for trade unions to operate without being caused enormous organisational problems and expense, which is a particularly vindictive approach to organisations that were created to ensure that workers can access their rights.
Many Conservative Members have said that, somehow, there will be freedom when we leave the European Union, but I could be forgiven for thinking that that will inaugurate a race to the bottom on rights. There will be competition in how exploitative we can be to those who work in what is already—let me put it this way—a very flexible economy, in which many people now struggle even to achieve basic pay, conditions, pension entitlement, sick pay, holiday pay and the rest of it.
We will look at the colour of the legislation, but I note that the Minister initially tried to get these statutory instruments through without even having a debate. Labour Members continue to look very closely, with a great deal of scepticism, at what is actually happening here, and whether there will be another attempt further to ratchet down the rights that people enjoy in our labour market.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I gently say that those of us on the Government Benches have listened to these allegations that we all have it in for workers’ rights, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are actually very proud of our track record on workers’ rights, and we stand by it. Although we may be silently listening to this long line of allegations, it does not mean that those allegations are true. We can stand proudly on our track record. I thought I would put that on the record, because otherwise a person listening in from outside this place might go away with the wrong impression. At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words.
Ms Eagle
I am glad to have provoked the hon. Gentleman to get to his feet and make that fairly fantastical claim, when 60% of people in poverty are actually in work, and when we have seen a huge increase in the number of people on zero-hours contracts, or on contracts so flexible that they cannot put food on the table at the end of the week.
Chris Stephens
Does the hon. Lady agree that insecure work has exploded in the past nine years and that the reason we are so suspicious is that those who advocate leaving the European Union kept using the deregulation of workers’ rights as a vehicle to enhance their cause?
Ms Eagle
Absolutely. We all remember the horror with which the Thatcherites perceived the appearance of Monsieur Delors at the Trades Union Congress, when he actually said that there was a social justice aspect to the European Union and that, of course, if there is a free market in the EU, there also has to be cross-border workers’ rights. Anyone who looks at the record will know exactly what to expect from the deregulators who form the core of the Brextremist Members of the Government party. They are positively salivating at the chance to cut further people’s entitlements in the labour market. They have always hated the idea that there was a floor below which they could not take workers’ rights, even when they were in government.
Mr Baron
The hon. Lady talks about social rights, yet she tends to turn a blind eye to the fact that within the EU—certainly on the continent—unemployment is nearly twice the level that it is here, and youth employment in certain countries runs up to 50% and above, which is an absolute disgrace. That is not social justice. There has to be an element of balance in the hon. Lady’s remarks if she is comparing our track record with that of the EU on the continent.
Ms Eagle
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting comment. He looks at countries such as Spain, which has had a particularly difficult time with youth employment, and southern countries, but does not mention Germany or Sweden or any of the other places—[Interruption.] Let me finish the sentence. He does not remember any of the other places where there is a much less exploitative approach to skills, training, work and opportunities, and where they manage to create a much more productive economy, with a much happier workforce, which does not feel that it is being exploited.
Mr Baron
I am afraid the hon. Lady was being selective again. I quoted the EU average unemployment rate, which includes Germany and France and the northern countries. Even taking them into account, the EU unemployment rate is twice the level of that in this country. When the hon. Lady talks of productivity, she has got to be careful. If we are employing a greater share of the workforce, productivity will go down. Halving the unemployment rate is often done among low-skilled workers.
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Lady responds, I would just say that the discussion is going a bit wide of the mark. We could turn this into a general debate, but that is not what we are here for. If we could focus on the statutory instruments, that would be really useful.
Ms Eagle
Thank you, Mr Evans, and I am more than happy to abide by the obvious correctness of your ruling. I will merely say in passing that the issue is about taking away workers’ employment rights and making them harder to access and easier to exploit, which suggests that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay takes a very different view from Labour Members of what represents a good productive workforce. A proper look at the evidence indicates as much.
Rushanara Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and a number of his colleagues seem to act in an evidence-free zone, even when the facts speak for themselves regarding the Government’s legislative changes to employment rights and reducing people’s rights? They opposed the national minimum wage when Labour introduced it and a whole series of improved labour standards regulations. Just because he says it, albeit in a well-mannered way, does not make it true. He should face up to the facts, which are that his Government have undermined labour standards. This is another attempt at a race to the bottom and labour market exploitation.
The Chair
Order. I know the hon. Member for Wallasey is not going to be tempted too far down the road of responding to that intervention.
Ms Eagle
Mr Evans, you know me very well and you know that I am never tempted at all to get away from being in order, which I take extremely seriously.
I have a couple of other points. We have to remember that for slightly more than 40 years the UK, as a member of the European Union, has seen progress in and directives on employment law, as well as protections for a range of rights, including health and safety, equality, equal treatment and anti-discrimination. Those protections have been considered a floor below which no Government of this country have been able to go, despite the wishes of certain current Government Members.
The Minister asks us to trust her—and trust the Prime Minister’s warm words but complete lack of action—that the Government do not wish to go below that floor, yet many of the Brextremists in the Conservative party have openly indicated otherwise. The Beecroft report would have crashed through the floor into the basement and further down. We know about the treatment of trade unions and organisations whose raison d’être is to protect workers. The lack of legislation or progress on any new forms of employment is simply another indication that, at the very least, the Government do not prioritise this area, but I suspect that the situation is worse than that.
If we are to agree to instruments such as the draft regulations, we will need much better suggestions from the Minister than, “Trust me.” We want much more evidence that there will be no loss to updating rights and that, as the TUC suggests, further rights agreed by the European Union will be more than matched in this country. We also need to know much more—I hope the Minister will cover this in her reply—about why it was thought acceptable for some pieces of legislation to be debated retrospectively after coming into being.
I hope that the Minister’s reply will give us some satisfaction that we can trust in, so that we can move forward. However, I have to say that I think it quite right for the Opposition to vote against the draft regulations until we see much more evidence that the Government will deliver what they say they want to deliver, and that they will act. To date, they have simply talked.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I want to pick up where my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey finished: on the issue of trust. I know the Minister to be a reasonable woman, and she is in her job at the moment, as the Prime Minister is in hers. However, the Government are basically asking us to take the draft regulations on trust. What will happen in the future, when we lose the protections and rights that we enjoy thanks to our European Union membership? It may happen under a different Minister, but it will almost certainly happen under a different Prime Minister. As we all know, the Prime Minister says that she will not hang around for very long, and she will certainly not take the Conservative party into the next general election.
We also know that, as my hon. Friend said, there are many Conservative Members itching to get their hands on employment protections and regulations. They want a bonfire and a race to the bottom, and they fantasise about a Singapore-style Britain somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. It is those people who are likely to steal the Prime Minister’s crown when there is finally a Conservative succession, because they are in the majority among her party members.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I just do not recognise that description of members of my party. I am sorry, but it is wrong to say that we fantasise about doing away with all that stuff.
Mr Bradshaw
I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman, of course, but I invite him to study the writings and comments of members of the European Research Group and their favourite economist, Patrick Minford, about their vision for our future. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of those views, it is very worrying, because these are the people who are holding our country to ransom and taking over the Conservative party. There are Conservative MPs on my own patch whose local parties are being infiltrated by Arron Banks supporters with the specific aim of deselecting decent Conservative Members like the hon. Gentleman and replacing them with hard-right fanatics.
The Minister is asking us to take everything on trust in a world in which it is simply not possible to do so in a responsible way. She was very selective in her list of areas where Britain does have a good record, and where her own Government have a fairly good record on parental leave and so forth.
As others have mentioned, the Government do not have a good record when it comes to organised labour; they have a blind spot regarding its crucial importance in protecting workers’ rights and people at work. We have heard countless examples, including the scandal of tribunal fees, the Trade Union Act and so forth. The Minister is asking us not only to take on trust that the people in charge now will still be in charge in the months ahead; she is also giving a rather imbalanced account of the Conservative party’s record.
I occasionally read that there are members of my own party who would like to facilitate or support the Prime Minister’s EU withdrawal deal, in return for what I consider to be completely meaningless assurances about the future of workers’ rights. I simply invite them, before they take that leap of faith, to look at the way in which the Government are ramming through these SIs without proper scrutiny.
We are elected as Labour Members to support workers’ rights. I would not want any of my colleagues inadvertently to support a very bad deal, on the basis of assurances given by a Prime Minister who is not going to be around, and when the real power brokers in her party have absolutely no intention of respecting those guarantees.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you chairing our proceedings this afternoon, Mr Evans. The final comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter were the perfect introduction to my remarks, given that I am one of those prepared to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, although not a blank cheque. Like many colleagues—every Opposition Member, I suspect—I signed amendments to the 15 January resolution, requesting greater clarity and assurances on workers’ rights as part of the Government’s deal, which they are trying to conclude and persuade Parliament to accept.
I heard what the Minister said about workers’ rights. We have heard that from the Prime Minister before. I do accept that in this country we enjoy rights above EU norms and that we are not entirely dependent on the EU for bringing forward workers’ rights. However, as every Opposition Member who spoke has clearly articulated, we need to see real evidence that the Government mean what they say on workers’ rights. Until we see that, there will continue to be a great degree of cynicism and scepticism that the Government actually mean it.
The discussions now taking place with trade unions are very welcome, but they are two years too late. Engagement with Labour Front Benchers is two years too late. Having said that, we are running out of time and the Government have the opportunity to demonstrate that they mean what they say.
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP for giving way. Does he agree that many of those enhanced rights were enacted by the last Labour Government, of which he was a part? Some changes, such as articles 13 and 14, enhancing rights against religious discrimination in the workplace, were incorporated by that Labour Government from EU legislation. This Government have shown much less willingness to enhance rights, and the risks remain that they will continue to run down our rights, as has been evidenced in this debate.
Jim Fitzpatrick
My hon. Friend demonstrates the degree of concern that the Opposition have about workers’ rights. I was not going to mention it but I am proud to say that, when I was employment Minister, I had the privilege of signing into legislation a number of rights that were not dependent on the EU. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey were also in positions that enabled them to take legislation through the House that improved standards in this country.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, the Minister is highly regarded in this place, so I say this with no disrespect. Our vote against these SIs demonstrates that the Government need to do more before they get support from as many Labour MPs as they need to get their deal through. Some of us on the Opposition Benches want that commitment and those assurances, so that we can vote without the fears outlined by my right hon. Friend.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. As the Minister responsible, I am well aware how passionate Members are about the subject, and not just those on the Opposition Benches. Despite what has been said, there is strong support for these regulations on the Government Benches.
I am extremely sad that the Opposition will be voting against this SI. I remind the Committee that it deals with a no-deal scenario and would come into force only if we leave the European Union on 29 March without a deal. It ensures that our statute book is in working order. By passing it today, we are effectively guaranteeing workers’ rights. Voting against it puts workers’ rights in jeopardy in the event of a no-deal scenario.
I will address some of the points that have been made. We are lucky that a number of experienced and well-respected Members have taken part in the debate. As a Minister and a relatively new Member, I welcome the experience and comments of Members who have been around far longer than I have. I was elected as a Conservative Member in 2015, but some of the comments I heard this afternoon, about my party’s position on workers and its aspirations for their future in our economy, were contrary to what my party stands for.
The Prime Minister invited Matthew Taylor to undertake his review—it was our Prime Minister who brought that forward—and we will be implementing the majority of its recommendations, as published in our “Good Work Plan”. That plan will be the biggest reform of workers’ rights in a generation—that is the reality—and a Conservative Government will bring it forward. I respect the position of hon. Members who say that they do not feel that they have had clear assurances from the Prime Minister that in a deal situation we will not row back on workers’ rights, but the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister has been clear. Not only have we announced the “Good Work Plan”, but we have already laid three SIs that further protect workers’ rights.
Chris Stephens
If the Minister wants to enhance and strengthen workers’ rights, the Government are welcome to support my Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill, which I can assure her is a beautifully written piece of legislation that deals with some of the issues. Does she not appreciate the criticism that the EU is currently negotiating regulations that give better and stronger workers’ rights than those set out in the “Good Work Plan”? If the EU pushes those through, can she give us an assurance that the UK Government will adopt the regulations?
Kelly Tolhurst
Let me be clear: the reality is that we are committed to going further on workers’ rights, as has been shown through our publication of the “Good Work Plan” and the laying of SIs. We are going further than any Conservative Government have, and I am very proud of that. I am extremely proud to be part of a Government who have put workers’ rights at the top of their agenda, particularly in my Department.
Justin Madders
Was the Minister proud when the High Court declared employment tribunal fees illegal?
Kelly Tolhurst
I am proud that this Government look at and deal with the issues that arise, and then look for ways of resolving them, which is exactly what we are doing with our “Good Work Plan” and the SIs that have already been laid. I understand the concerns of Opposition Members, but I am pleased to be extremely clear in saying that we are committed to maintaining workers’ rights and to going as far as we can. We talked about European Union committees and the work currently going on. We are still involved in those negotiations, are feeding into those negotiations and are helping the EU to formulate recommendations. The legislation that we are bringing forward will ensure that they are protected and will continue to be protected.
Kelly Tolhurst
I would like to finish my points and then get on to answering some of the questions I have been asked.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay made his contribution. He was absolutely right, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. I thank them for making their points. The accusations that the Opposition have levelled at our party and our Government this afternoon characterise a party that I did not join and I am not part of; they illustrate something that I do not think is the reality. I am the Minister responsible, and it is not what I think, so there we go. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I think that the Minister is being heckled by her own side. Can we please have a bit of calm, so that she can focus on her response?
Kelly Tolhurst
Thank you, Mr Evan; I am so very lucky to have you in the Chair this afternoon.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I reiterate that these regulations are for a no-deal situation. The Government are still determined to get a withdrawal deal. I hope that the Opposition will be willing and open-minded, and will want to work with the Prime Minister to ensure that happens, to get to a position where they will support a deal so that the regulations do not have to come into force in a no-deal situation.
I will try to answer the questions I have been asked, but I am more than happy to write to hon. Members if I do not respond to all of them. Hon. Members suggested that we are not retaining workers’ rights in these regulations. The regulations are mainly technical; they introduce technical changes to ensure that current rights are retained and that we operate from a clear statute book. As hon. Members know, there was no provision in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for us to make changes in policy. There was an element of the Act that enabled us to bring forward legislation to retain EU law and make modifications so that we would have a clear statute book.
The hon. Members for Wallasey and for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised the question of enacting such legislation. It is true that those elements were intended to correct redundant EU references, which is why they would come into force earlier. They are not a consequence of the UK leaving the EU; they would change out-of-date references in the legislation. I hope that my explanation has answered the hon. Lady’s question on that—the instrument does not actually have any relation to the UK leaving the EU.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining why there are different dates, but can she explain why some of them are retrospective?
Kelly Tolhurst
As I have outlined, it is because of out-of-date references to EU regulations in the legislation, which will be changed. On European works councils, it is true that the European Union could allow us to have a reciprocal agreement even in a no-deal situation. That could happen, but obviously we cannot guarantee that the EU will allow it. As it stands, the current laws and protections afforded to representatives on those councils and to employees will be retained. It will affect new works councils, but that might be resolved in a deal situation. In a no-deal situation, it does not stop the fact that there might be cross-border co-operation and reciprocal agreement. I can give hon. Members some comfort that, as I have outlined, anything that would allow us to continue in the same way and ensure that workers’ rights are protected would be a good thing.
Bob Stewart
Can I get this absolutely right? We are talking about taking employment rights from the European Union and putting them into UK law. Effectively, we are changing as little as possible, so that things do not change for workers. That is what the Conservative party would like to happen.
Kelly Tolhurst
I assure my hon. Friend that he is correct; that is exactly what we are doing. Failure to pass this no-deal SI would put workers’ rights in jeopardy. This SI would allow us to protect those rights.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for that explanation, but paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum states something different, namely that
“the SI amends the TICE Regulations 1999 so that no new requests to set up a European Works Council or information and consultation procedure can be made.”
Therefore, the statutory instrument actually weakens workers’ rights. Deal or no deal, is it the Government’s position that UK workers will have access to a European works council where it applies?
Kelly Tolhurst
As I have already said, because we will no longer be a member of the European Union, it will be up to the European Union to decide whether it gives us reciprocal abilities to continue down that path. There are existing rules governing consultation for businesses and employers. There is already a UK system. I like to think that what I said about opportunities for us to have reciprocal rights was clear, but the SIs relate to a no-deal situation, and I was very clear in my opening speech that in such a situation some things would be a reality and would not necessarily be in our control.
It was suggested that we should not use the wording “TUPE-like”. We decided to use that wording to maintain the current scope of the powers.
The SIs make no change to the working time directive. It will not be scrapped or lost. That is not what the SIs are intended to do. As I tried to make clear, in a no-deal situation, these SIs would not all of a sudden roll back or strip workers’ rights. That is not what they are about; they are about protecting the situation as it stands. That is why I feel very strongly about them. There will not be a vacuum in workers’ rights in a no-deal situation, because the powers effected by the SIs will protect the status quo. In a no-deal situation, those rights will not suddenly disappear. There will not be a race to the bottom. The Government have no intention of that.
We need a statute book that is ready to protect workers and give businesses, workers and employers all the clarity they need if we exit the European Union without a deal on 29 March. I hope the Committee recognises that these important pieces of legislation provide such clarity, and that failing to do so could jeopardise the rights of workers. I do not believe the UK workforce would be happy if it was unclear about what would happen in a no-deal situation.
I absolutely accept the comments made today about the Government’s commitment to securing workers’ rights, and wanting to go further. I am sorry that the Prime Minister’s word has not been taken completely at face value, because I fundamentally believe that what she has said is the case.
As I have already outlined, we have submitted the three SIs dealing with, among other things, the repeal of the Swedish derogation, and fairer holiday pay. Obviously, there is legislation to come. In a deal situation, or even a no-deal situation, we are intent on going further and making sure that workers in this country are protected. That also means working with and reacting to businesses and the marketplace. When things change, a responsible Government will look at the challenges and find ways to resolve some of the issues that may affect the workforce. I firmly believe that the Government are trying with absolute focus to do that.
The Government are complying with our duty to ensure that the UK is prepared for every outcome, whatever happens in the EU negotiations, and not to roll back workers’ rights. I therefore hope the Committee will approve the regulations.
The Chair
May I explain the process to the Committee? I shall put the first question and if the Committee wants a Division, that will happen. Each statutory instrument will then be taken individually. It will be up to the Committee whether to divide, but they will be taken separately. For the three statutory instruments that have not yet been moved, the Clerk will read the title before I request the Minister to move them formally.
Question put.
Draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry? The Government are committed to securing an agreement on the UK’s exit from the EU, but clearly we must be prepared for all outcomes. The legal framework for the regulation of public procurement by the Government and public sector bodies is essential to the day-to-day running of the public sector and to the economy. If no deal is reached with the EU, certain aspects of that legal framework will be deficient, leaving the public sector and businesses without legal clarity. The statutory instrument therefore seeks to address those deficiencies in a no-deal scenario.
The amendments in the draft regulations provide a balance between the need to maintain continuity based on the established framework and principles, and the need to correct those deficiencies to the extent permitted by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Principally, the statutory instrument amends three sets of regulations that implement EU directives on awarding contracts and concessions in the public and utilities sectors outside the field of defence and security.
One of the key amendments is to replace the requirement to publish contract notices in the Official Journal of the European Union with a requirement to submit notices to the UK e-notification service. That is intended simply to comply with the publication requirements of the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement. The UK e-notification service is being developed and is on track to be in place by exit day.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I realise that the explanatory memorandum does not officially form part of the instrument we are debating, but it is there to help us. Paragraph 6.6 of the memorandum states:
“There are some deficiencies in the Regulations that have not been fixed in this instrument.”
Can the Minister tell us what those deficiencies are, when they are likely to be fixed and debated, and why we are doing this in a piecemeal manner?
Oliver Dowden
I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend with fuller details, but the instrument essentially seeks to align the procurement regime we have under the EU and bring it into UK law. There will be further opportunities to fix deficiencies as we continue to reform regulation in a post-EU environment.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister says there will be future opportunities. Surely, as the Minister responsible, he has already identified those opportunities and planned a timeline for making the fixes he thinks are required. Will he clarify that?
Oliver Dowden
The best approach to identifying opportunities for reforming procurement laws is to look at those laws in totality once we have left the European Union so that, to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, we can consider their full scope rather than doing things in a piecemeal fashion. In that way, we will be able to reform EU procurement law in its totality and ensure that we address the range of concerns about how that law works. Since we will no longer be bound by it, we will have the opportunity to do that in a full-hearted way.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, may I make a suggestion? Does my hon. Friend agree that broadband is critical for the future of our country, but that too often public procurement rules have been used to stop the roll-out of broadband by setting artificially high barriers to the provision of state aid by the Government? The state aid rules have been used against local communities. Will he look at that as he takes this policy area forward?
Oliver Dowden
That is one example. There are many such examples. The Government are still working on the assumption that we will reach agreement on the withdrawal agreement, that it will be passed by Parliament and that we will have a transition period, which will allow us two years to consider this further. I would like to have a Green Paper first so that we can discuss all the ideas before formally bringing forward legislation, to make sure we capture all the related issues.
Alan Brown
Can the Minister explain what checks and balances there are? The EU procurement rules were about open competitive tendering. We know that with Ferrygate it was a direct award. What checks and balances are there to stop the UK Government, rather than the Cabinet Office, from having too much power in the procurement process?
Oliver Dowden
The draft regulations take all the existing EU procurement rules and replace them in the law of the United Kingdom. All the remedies that exist under EU law will exist under these regulations. Such cases can be pursued in court, as was the case previously. There is no change to the law other than to bring these things into UK law, and no change to the remedies—they still exist in the courts as they did previously.
This statutory instrument confers a number of regulation-making powers. They mirror powers that the EU Commission and the European Council have under EU directives and regulations or the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. The current procurement regulations are subject to the derogation in article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. That provision enables the UK to take necessary measures to protect essential security interests connected with the production of or trade in armed munitions and war material. That includes overriding the procurement rules or aspects of them.
To ensure that the UK continues to benefit from this important derogation once we have left the EU, we have incorporated the text of article 346 into the procurement regulations, with appropriate modifications. Currently, the arms and munitions that fall within the scope of the derogation are determined by a list drawn up by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community as it then was, back in 1958. The list includes portable and automatic firearms, ammunition, guided missiles, military vehicles and so on. The modifications we have made include a power for the Secretary of State for Defence to update that 1958 list, for example to take account of developments in technology. Given the nature of this regulation-making power and its potential to affect the scope of the procurement regulations, its exercise has been made subject to the affirmative procedure.
The other regulation-making powers will be exercised by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. They include the function to revalue the main financial thresholds following a biennial review on the same basis as the European Commission, and to convert thresholds of the agreement on Government procurement directly into equivalent sterling values. Also transferred is the power that the directives confer on the Commission to update the exemptions to the use of electronic means of communication, in the light of technological developments, and to update the technical requirements relating to tools and devices for the electronic receipt of tenders, as well as to take account of technological developments.
The updates would be made through regulations that are subject to the prior consent of Welsh Ministers or Northern Ireland Departments in respect of devolved Welsh or Northern Ireland authorities. The Commission’s power to amend the list of international agreements in the field of environmental, social and labour law, set out in annexes to the directives, has also been conferred on the Minister for the Cabinet Office by means of the Minister’s power to treat the list as though certain international agreements were removed and others not covered were listed. Again, any ensuing regulations are subject to the prior consent of Welsh Ministers or Northern Ireland Departments in respect of Welsh or Northern Ireland devolved authorities.
Finally, the Commission currently has the power to amend the annexes to EU regulation 2195/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the common procurement vocabulary—CPV. That regulation will become retained direct EU legislation on exit day. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is given the same power to amend the annexes to the retained version of the regulation.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I want to raise an issue about the drafting of the regulations that sticks in my craw slightly. Regulation 17(2) refers to the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016. Clearly, the idea of adopting the Scottish Parliament’s statutory instrument to replace the European Union regulations is how the Government want to proceed, which is fine. However, unfortunately, in drafting it, the Government have omitted to make provision for it to be amended. Given that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has powers to increase the amounts when regulations kick in, a similar power rests with the Scottish Parliament and should be reflected in the regulations, so that the correct, updated regulations are referred to for utility companies. This provision is made earlier on in the regulations, so I think it is just a mere omission and if we have to revisit it, it can be done at the appropriate stage.
Oliver Dowden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think he is quite right in that interpretation but I will confirm that.
The annexes set out a sophisticated vocabulary that enables numerical codes to be used to describe different kinds of works, supplies and services in, for example, notices that advertise procurement opportunities and so enable suppliers quickly to identify procurements that are of potential interest to them.
Moving on to the other amendments, the UK is moving forward in its activity to join the WTO agreement on Government procurement in its own right. We have reached the stage where GPA parties have agreed in principle to our market access offer and accession. However, in this instrument, we have taken precautions in case the UK’s accession to GPA has not been fully completed by exit day. One of the amendments ensures continued guaranteed access, rights and remedies on current terms for suppliers from existing GPA countries for a period of eight months from exit day. Without this amendment, suppliers from GPA parties would no longer have the guaranteed access, rights and remedies that they currently enjoy in our public procurement contracts. This will mitigate the risks of a short gap in GPA membership by facilitating continued market access.
Delays in the Trade Bill mean that we have also laid before Parliament for approval a further statutory instrument that would amend the regulations we are now debating, to implement a similar measure for certain bilateral trade agreements between the EU and third countries to which the UK is currently party via its membership of the EU. That will keep alive existing obligations towards suppliers in the countries with which the EU has, before exit day, entered into trade agreements, with provisions relating to public procurement, by which it is bound.
This second amending statutory instrument would also preserve existing duties towards GPA economic operators and amend the time period to 18 months from exit day. This change in the time period bring the GPA provisions in line with those related to the UK’s transitioned international agreements. This SI is also subject to the affirmative procedure.
Section 3 of the withdrawal Act has the effect that any EU legislation in force and applicable on exit day will automatically become part of UK law. The draft regulations modify various EU regulations and decisions that will become retained direct EU legislation. They also revoke for the whole of the UK the Commission’s implementing regulation that establishes standard forms of public procurement. The forms laid out in the Commission’s regulation will not be required for the new UK e-notification service. The service itself will be designed to elicit information in the form and the way it is to be submitted.
In summary, the regulations seeks to ensure that the current public procurement regime will continue to function after our withdrawal from the EU. It does not seek to make major policy changes or introduce new frameworks. Instead, it makes largely technical changes to correct deficiencies that will naturally emerge within our legislation on exit day. Left unamended, the existing regulations would not work as intended and would cause confusion and uncertainty for procurers and suppliers, hampering the public sector’s ability to obtain value for money from procurement. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I welcome this opportunity to discuss our procurement system and the proposed changes. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. With just 44 days before our scheduled departure from the European Union, I only wish that this was not happening in such rushed and chaotic circumstances. However, that is what we have come to expect from this Government.
Before I comment on the statutory instrument before us, I must point out, as we in the Labour party have been doing for the last few years, that our procurement system is fundamentally broken. It is a system that works for big business at the expense of our small and medium-sized enterprises and, most importantly, the public. It rewards companies with poor employment practices that do not pay their fair share of tax and, in the cases of Carillion and Interserve, have flawed business models. The explanatory memorandum states that the purpose of these regulations is to transpose into law an “open and competitive” system in which
“suppliers are treated equally and fairly.”
I do not think that is possible without a fundamental shift in Government policy.
We know, for example, that under the current system SMEs receive a declining proportion of Government cloud spending. We also know that the number of businesses receiving late payments from the Cabinet Office has nearly tripled in the past two years, and that many large outsourcers simply do not pay their suppliers on time. Most importantly, a few mega-firms that are too cosy with Government continue to be dominant at the top. Although we accept and recognise that we need to address the statute book deficiencies that result from the UK exiting the EU, if the Government are serious about creating a procurement system that is truly open and fair, they must start at the root and overhaul this broken system.
Martin Whitfield
Is it not right that this statutory instrument yet again demonstrates the pressure that the incredibly hard-working civil servants are under to have everything in place for no-deal day? As was mentioned earlier, there are deficiencies that have been identified and not listed. An explanation for that has been given, but I feel that time pressure was probably more of a reason why those deficiencies were not listed. Given the drafting errors that this statutory instrument contains, the pressure pot is about to explode.
Jo Platt
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and share his concerns that this Government are not prepared for a no-deal exit from the EU. The fact is that the Government could stop this today by taking no deal off the table.
I will raise a number of specific issues with the Minister, on which I would like clarity. The first is the e-notification service that is proposed to replace the Official Journal of the European Union, in which tenders are currently published. We are told that the e-notification service will be ready by 29 March, so will the Minister confirm that that deadline will be met? Given this Government’s record on the delivery of technology, there is no reason for optimism. The gov.uk Verify programme, the national security vetting solution, the common platform programme, the digital services at the border project and the emergency services mobile communications programme are just a few flagship Government IT programmes; they have all been plagued by delays, spiralling costs or outright failure. To put it bluntly, this Government have consistently proven themselves incapable of introducing new technology across the public sector without causing significant disruption. Just this month, we have been discussing the Government’s failure to develop a EU citizen registration programme that works on both Android and Apple phones, so why should we have any confidence that they will deliver on this technological aspect of EU exit?
That e-notification service is particularly important because of the consequences of the system not being fully operational on exit day. The UK awards the most procurement contracts by value of any EU nation. Should that system be non-functional or error-prone as a result of the chaotic circumstances in which it has been created, the economic consequences could be dramatic, and the challenges to the public sector of maintaining procurement could be significant. That is the primary reason why we on the Opposition Benches are perplexed that no impact assessment has been carried out. We are especially concerned about SMEs, which often lack the access to technical expertise that large companies enjoy. If there are problems with the e-notification service, the impacts of those problems will be felt unevenly, and the Government will be further baking into the system the imbalances that already exist in our procurement market.
Turning to the Competition and Markets Authority and its oversight role in enforcing state aid rules, which is noted in the SI, will the Minister please update us on the CMA’s preparedness for exit day and whether it has the staff and resourcing that it needs? As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian pointed out earlier, as we know from extensive reporting in the media, the civil service is facing a challenge of historic proportions as it scrambles to prepare for both a no-deal Brexit and a transition Brexit. As the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Jon Thompson, recently said, the civil service is “hamstrung” by this lack of clarity. The Labour party has said that the civil service is incapable of fulfilling its role because of nearly a decade of public sector cuts.
These truly are trying times to be a public servant, and it is in this climate that the Competition and Markets Authority will attempt to enforce a state aid regime the nature of which we do not yet know, and in which the CMA has no experience. In other words, we do not know yet how a significant feature of the procurement market will work.
I seek clarification from the Minister on our GPA membership in the event of no deal, which is absolutely essential if we are to protect the access of UK suppliers across the EU. Although, as the Minister mentioned earlier, we have an agreement in principle, will he assure us that we will definitely be ready for independent GPA membership on exit day?
If the UK leaves the EU without GPA membership, the explanatory memorandum states in paragraph 7.20 that Government policy will be to offer other nations access into our procurement market, seemingly without any assurances that this arrangement would be reciprocated. We could then be in the incredible situation of allowing international suppliers competing with UK firms to fulfil our procurement contracts while UK firms might be prevented from accessing global procurement markets. This policy would be disastrous for UK firms and emphasises the totally chaotic handling of these negotiations. It further adds to the uncertainty that businesses are already facing with Brexit.
Let me reiterate that if our GPA membership is not finalised before exit day, this is yet another area in which we are simply not ready for exiting the European Union next month without a deal. Six pieces of legislation are not in place that would need to be. The Government are seriously behind on the passage of statutory instruments such as this, which are needed if we are to leave without a deal or a transition period. Equally, our Border Force is woefully unprepared, without the staff or IT systems needed for EU exit. We can add GPA membership to the growing list of reasons that we are simply unable to leave next month without serious chaos and disruption.
Finally, I have two quick points of clarification. With reference to the transitional measures set out in the schedule, specifically in paragraph 2, what assurances have we received from the EU that existing contracts with UK suppliers will be honoured? Will the Minister clarify the mechanism that the Government will use to cancel or nullify this SI in the event that the UK does leave the EU with a deal? Will he also confirm that a further SI will then be needed during the transition period to prepare the statute book for our future negotiated relationship?
In closing, I want to reflect on and state our disbelief that there are no impact assessments accompanying this SI. I dedicated my speech to pointing out the enormous changes these regulations will cause to the UK procurement system, from a new IT system to the possibility of UK SMEs being restricted from applying for EU procurement contracts.
Impact assessments should quite clearly have been carried out, especially when the stability of some of our SMEs is at stake. However, the explanatory note states that
“no, or no significant, impact”
on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen. It even goes on to say that the impact on small business is expected to be low. How is that defensible after all that we have heard? It is a disservice to those businesses that assessments have not been completed but, quite frankly, I should not be surprised, as it is characteristic of this Government’s handling of this entire process: “Trust us and we’ll sort it out.”
I take this opportunity to restate our position that no deal must be categorically ruled out by the Government. As these regulations confirm, we are not ready for the chaos it would cause. These regulations, most of all, risk baking in the imbalances our SMEs too often face in the system, and they confirm our belief that the procurement system needs urgent transformation, to put real social value at its heart. If only we had a Government willing to stand up in the interests of the many, and to reform the broken system that, too often, works just for the few.
Oliver Dowden
The Opposition spokesperson raised a large number of issues and I shall seek to address them all. If I fail to do so, I will be more than happy to write to her.
The starting point is to remember that the regulations are not intended to change our procurement regime. The opportunity to do that will come afterwards, depending on the future relationship that we negotiate—or sooner, in a no-deal scenario. With the regulations, we seek to replicate existing procurement rules to give stability to companies engaged in procurement, so that they will know that the rules under which they currently bid will continue after we leave the European Union. Of course there are areas of procurement that we would like to reform, but the regulations are not the appropriate vehicle for doing so; it would be better for us to look subsequently at reforming procurement in the round.
Within the context of existing EU procurement rules, we have made significant progress. The hon. Member for Leigh mentioned SMEs. In the last Parliament, for the first time, this Government set a target of 25% of all Government business going to SMEs, and we met it. In this Parliament, we have set a target of 33% and we are making progress towards that. Indeed, I have announced further measures to help us reach that point. However, the regulations are separate from that; they are about ensuring continuity, which in my experience is what businesses are after.
I will try to address some of her specific points. The hon. Lady rightly said the e-notification scheme is due to come into force at the end of March. Ministers in the Cabinet Office take a close interest in that, and we continue to believe that it is on course to do so. I do not think that there is concern about that. A question was asked about what would happen if, as we hope to, we leave with a deal. In that instance, the measures will simply be deferred. They may have to be amended, depending on the nature of the future political framework that is agreed, and how we implement it through primary legislation.
The regulations do not provide for oversight by the CMA of the procurement regime. Agreed suppliers will, however, continue to be afforded remedies provided for in the regulations. In that way, contracting authorities and other entities will be held to account by the courts—again, essentially replicating the situation that we had before.
The hon. Lady rightly raised GPA membership. From listening to her, one could be forgiven for thinking that we were somehow desperately off-track on GPA membership. We have reached agreement in principle for the United Kingdom to join the WTO GPA. We are confident that we will very shortly be in a position to lay statutory instruments before Parliament to enable that to happen.
There is a small chance of a gap between the “in principle” accession to the GPA that is already agreed and the “in law” joining of the GPA, essentially because of the number of days required to lay the statutory instruments before Parliament. What we are trying to do with the regulations, and the subsequent SI that I highlighted, is to give certainty in that scenario to all contractors who are not based in the UK that they can continue to access the UK as if we remained members of the GPA.
Theoretically, in that small gap there is a chance that another country could decide that there was no basis for UK companies to access their market. However, there is a pretty small chance of that, first of all because we have moved unilaterally to say that we would allow them access. On the basis of reciprocity, we would expect it.
Furthermore, almost every country, I think bar South Korea, would require an Act to be passed by its Government to exclude UK companies, and it would have to apply to a situation where the procurement process had commenced, a UK company had applied for it, and the process had concluded. Given that we have already reached agreement in principle to join and we are progressing at a very good rate, the chances of that happening are exceptionally small. However, to provide clarity we have said that overseas actors can have access to our market.
Mr Jayawardena
Looking at the history, Moldova was the only country to object to our accession to the GPA. Following further discussion with our mission in Geneva, Moldova has now agreed to withdraw that opposition. Indeed, the members of the GPA committee have agreed to our accession.
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is right. Essentially, political agreement has been reached for the United Kingdom to join the GPA; these are just the remaining technical stages. I would happily outline them in more detail, but I shall not bore the Committee. In essence, we have reached an agreement; these are just technical measures to ensure that it happens.
The hon. Member for Leigh set great store by the question of an impact assessment. She rightly highlighted the explanatory memorandum, which sets out the impact in broad terms. When impacts are assessed to be below an annual cost of £5 million, a full impact assessment is not required. Our initial analysis is that it falls below that threshold; therefore, such an assessment is not required.
I hope that I have addressed all the points that the hon. Lady raised. As I said, I will happily take up further points subsequently through correspondence. Again, I reassure the Committee that the regulations make provisions for the status quo. They take the existing EU procurement laws and replicate them so that there can be certainty. The only real change relates to notification. Clearly, we will not have access to the OJEU, so we are creating our own notification system. However, it will replicate the existing OJEU notification system.
There are, of course, questions surrounding how we can reform procurement. In the end, leaving the European Union provides the opportunity for us to look at it more flexibly. However, the proper way to do that is through full consultation, looking at a total process of reform. That will rightly be considered by Parliament through primary legislation, which is a much better vehicle for such reform than a statutory instrument. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Financial Services Contracts (Transitional and Saving Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services Contracts (Transitional and Saving Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
As members of the Committee who follow Treasury statutory instruments with interest will be aware, we have been undertaking a programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal or an implementation period, a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services continues. To deliver that, the Treasury is laying statutory instruments before Parliament under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There have already been debates on many such statutory instruments in this place and in the House of Lords. The draft statutory instrument that we are debating is part of that programme. It has already been debated and approved by the House of Lords.
In December 2017, the Treasury announced that we would legislate to establish a temporary permissions regime enabling European economic area firms operating in the UK to continue their activities in the UK for a time-limited period after withdrawal without seeking full UK authorisation. At the same time, it was announced that we would legislate to ensure that contractual obligations not covered by that regime could continue to be met. That will help to protect the interests of UK customers of EEA financial services firms.
The legislation setting out the temporary permissions regime for firms that passport under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was debated and passed by this House last autumn in the form of the EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. Legislation for other temporary regimes covering non-UK central counterparties, EEA payments and e-money institutions, and trade repositories has similarly been debated and passed by this House.
The draft regulations before us deliver on the second commitment that we made: to ensure that those financial services contracts not captured by the temporary permissions regime can continue to be serviced. They also ensure continuity for UK-based customers of financial services providers that do not enter other temporary regimes, or that exit such regimes without having obtained the full UK authorisation, recognition and registration that they would otherwise need to continue carrying out their activities in the UK.
Specifically, this draft instrument makes provision for passporting EEA firms, non-UK central counterparties, EEA payment and e-money institutions, and trade repositories to wind down their UK operations in an orderly manner. It will apply to firms and service providers that no longer wish to operate in the UK, and those that exit a temporary regime without permission from the UK authorities to carry on a new business here. The approach taken in the draft regulations aligns with that taken in other statutory instruments laid before Parliament under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. The regulations deliver on the Treasury’s commitments and are vital to the financial services sector and all UK consumers.
Turning to the substance of the regulations, those familiar with EU law will know that it allows EEA firms, non-UK central counterparties and trade repositories to provide regulated services in the UK by virtue of being authorised in another member state, or recognised and registered by the relevant EU authority. In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the EEA and the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework. Once the EEA frameworks providing for passporting rights, recognition of central counterparties and registration of trade repositories fall away, as they would in a no-deal scenario, we need to act to avoid widespread disruption to the provision of financial services, which would clearly be detrimental to UK businesses and consumers.
The draft regulations insert provisions into existing temporary regimes to enable the orderly wind-down of contractual obligations or services, and so will provide continuity and certainty for UK customers of those firms that do not enter the temporary regimes, or that exit them without full UK authorisation, as I have said. Specifically, the regulations will establish four distinct run-off regimes relating to four different temporary regimes. The regimes will cover: first, EEA firms passporting under the Financial Services and Markets Act; secondly, non-UK central counterparties; thirdly, EEA payments and e-money institutions; and, last, trade repositories.
The temporary regimes already established go a long way in mitigating risks of disruption and uncertainty. Without these additional wind-down provisions, however, UK businesses and consumers could see some disruption to their contracts or services. The instrument is necessary to minimise that disruption to users and providers in a no-deal scenario. For example, if an EEA insurance provider with customers in the UK does not enter the temporary permissions regime, the instrument will allow the insurer to pay out on a claim to its UK customers where it could otherwise be illegal for it to do so. The instrument will allow firms with pre-existing contractual obligations to continue to meet them, providing certainty and fairness to both the providers and users of financial services, and demonstrating that the UK remains open for business and takes legal certainty and business continuity seriously.
The Treasury worked closely with the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority in drafting the instrument. It has also engaged widely across the financial services sector, which has supported the measure and continues to do so. On 17 December, the Treasury published the instrument in draft, along with an explanatory note to maximise transparency to Parliament and the industry.
In conclusion, the instrument is a pragmatic response to the need to ensure service continuity if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The importance of the provisions is reflected in the announcement of December 2017, which made it very clear to the industry that well in advance of exit day, the Treasury would put forward legislation to deliver these regimes. The legislation is necessary to ensure that contractual obligations can continue to be met, thus avoiding disruption and losses for UK business and consumers. I hope all colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
What a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Minister for his explanation of quite a complicated measure, but I cannot help but wonder at the amount of time—both his and his officials’, here and elsewhere—being sucked up by such measures. It is yet another consequence of the madness that is Brexit, and particularly the madness of no-deal Brexit—a prospect that the Government should have taken off the table weeks, if not months, ago, given the opportunity to do so.
The Minister made a genuine attempt to explain as clearly as possible this important, complicated matter. I do not doubt the sincerity of his speech, but I utterly despair at the fact that we are being sucked further into the morass of chaos that is Brexit at a time when the country faces so many major problems. I greatly and deeply regret the situation.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. Once again, the Minister and I are here to discuss a statutory instrument that would set up a regulatory framework after Brexit in the event of us leaving in a disorderly fashion without a deal. On each of these occasions, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have explained our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation.
The volume and the flow of EU exit secondary legislation give rise to deep concern, from the point of view of accountability and proper scrutiny. The Government say that no policy decisions are being taken, but establishing a regulatory framework, for example, inevitably involves policy, and raises the questions about resourcing and capacity referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester.
Secondary legislation should be used when the Government want to do things that are technical, non-partisan and uncontroversial. This Government continue to push through contentious legislation with high policy content using secondary legislation. As legislators, we have to get it right. These regulations could represent major changes to the statute book, so they need proper, in-depth scrutiny. In light of that, the Opposition would like to put on record our deepest concern about the fact that the process for these regulations is not as accessible and transparent as it should be, or as the Minister suggests it is.
Unfortunately, the regulations seem to have three statutory instruments within them: one amending the EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018; one amending the Central Counterparties (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018; and one amending the Trade Repositories (Amendment and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. The way they have been pasted together causes concern, to say the least, and the result is that they are extremely difficult to follow, let alone scrutinise. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to a number of concerns.
Part 2 sets up a temporary permissions regime that says that if someone is carrying out an activity that is authorised in their home state, and several conditions are met, for a temporary period that person can carry on with that activity in the UK. The activity had to have been allowed under the Financial Services and Markets Act prior to exit day, and the person had to have had an establishment in the UK. Several further criteria must be fulfilled; in particular, the regulations seem to say that if the activity was part of performing a pre-existing contract or, more tenuously, part of “reducing the financial risk” to a party to a contract or a third party affected, a temporary permission should apply.
In other words, it seems that these regulations are trying to avoid cutting across existing contracts. They might have in mind, among others, private equity funders on one side of a contract when referring to parties involved with reducing the risk of a contract. I would like the Minister to explain more about that. What is meant by “reducing the financial risk”, and how far does that go?
Chapter 3 of part 2 sets the period for the temporary permissions regime. It seems to say that the period is 15 years for a contract of insurance and five years for other purposes. Does that mean that EU law continues to apply for 15 years for the purposes of insurance contracts, and for five years for other contracts? Clarity on that would be helpful. There is not much detail, and a period 15 or even five years is stretching the limits of “temporary”. We are concerned that in trying to avoid chaos for contractors, the Government might be creating even more uncertainty. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that and clarified it.
Proposed new part 6, chapter 4 of the EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 appears to modify the Financial Services and Markets Act. This is the application of a Henry VIII clause—something that is much criticised by lawyers and judges, as we all know. Chapter 4 also gives the Financial Conduct Authority power to receive applications for permission to vary. That seems to be a significant amount of power going to the FCA, and there is seemingly little power here for Parliament to review or hold accountable.
Proposed new chapter 4 allows the FCA to cancel the temporary permissions based on:
“(a) the person’s conduct,
(b) the practicality of supervision by a regulator,
(c) the size of the person’s undertaking, and
(d) the nature or extent of the regulated activity”.
Can the Minister clarify what conduct would or might justify cancellation, and what
“the nature or extent of the regulated activity”
means? Are we correct in understanding that there does not appear to be a right of appeal on this determination? I would be grateful if the Minister clarified. Obviously, just process and natural justice should be upheld. We are concerned about the implications of making the FCA into a judge in individual cases, and a lawmaker.
Proposed new part 9 of the EEA passport rights regulations appears to give the Treasury the power to extend the temporary regime, as the FCA has to submit to the Treasury an assessment of the need to extend the regime. That, again, leaves doubt about how temporary this all is. I would be grateful for assurances on that.
Other parts of the regulations deal with transitional arrangements relating to central counterparties and trade repositories. On central counterparties, for certain activities a one-year transition period appears to apply, and for others,
“the Bank may direct that the central counterparty be subject to such transitional arrangements as it considers necessary or expedient”.
Again, I would like to know more about the thinking behind issuing such power and discretion to the Bank of England.
We are becoming increasingly alarmed at the Government’s unfolding approach to regulating financial services. There does not appear to be an overall plan; there is no indication of how different pieces of legislation fit together; and, above all, there is no clarity. I looked at legislation across the world that appears to be clearer than this, but is ridiculous. For example, in Fairbanks, Alaska, it is illegal to sell alcohol to a moose.
Christian Matheson
It is also illegal to sell antifreeze to the Indians of Quebec.
Peter Dowd
That seems a much clearer position than the Government’s. In Quitman, Georgia, it is illegal to change the clothes on a storefront mannequin unless the shades are down. That seems perfectly sensible. In South Bend, Indiana it is illegal for monkeys to smoke cigarettes. Apparently, cigars are okay, but only if the monkey goes outside. I am sure that monkeys could understand that legislation, but some of the regulations coming to us are quite ridiculous. We have to be clear.
As Members will know, earlier this week, Labour opposed the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill on Second Reading, because it represented a worrying transfer of powers of significant scope to the Executive. We have all been deeply concerned about this, as we have said time after time. Today, colleagues will debate in the Chamber the Securitisation Regulations 2018, which Labour prayed against for similar—or at least related—reasons.
I believe that when we voted to leave the EU, the aim was to empower Parliament to debate and make those decisions, not to concentrate them in the hands of civil servants or Ministers, yet the Government continue to put our economy at risk through their chaotic and opaque approach to lawmaking and the handling of Brexit. It is clear that rather than the Government pushing through such a large volume of piecemeal legislation, we need consolidated pieces of primary legislation, scrutinised in the proper and correct way, as opposed to regulations being brought to Committees in which no one from the Government Benches tries to challenge them.
Ultimately, we legislators have to get this right. This is not just about the principle of democracy and accountability, but about robust lawmaking that is clear, comprehensive, coherent and enforceable. That is our duty as parliamentarians. As far as the public are concerned, we are paid to do that, and we should do it, but the Government are not allowing us to. It is precisely because the stakes are so high, and because the Opposition view their responsibilities to the British public with the utmost intensity and severity, that we will be voting against the regulations.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the questions put by the hon. Members for Bootle, and for City of Chester.
I disagree with the hon. Member for City of Chester. Leaving without a deal is clearly not our preference—there are sectors of the economy, including financial services, for which that would be a very difficult situation indeed—but it is not responsible to take no deal off the table at this stage, and to diminish our leverage in the crucial final stages of the negotiations. In fact, it is not possible to take it off the table, because there is the matter of the primary legislation that is already in place. Until such time as the House of Commons passes a law to the contrary, we have to act on the basis that no deal is a potential scenario.
Any responsible Government would be taking the steps that we are today. The regulations have been welcomed by the industry, which has described them as the final piece in the puzzle, and an important piece of legislation that we need to pass to ensure that UK financial services institutions and consumers are protected.
By approving the regulations, we are making a fair, unilateral regime available to our friends and partners across the EEA—a regime that will give firms temporary access allow them to run off their businesses in an orderly manner. That is what people would expect us to do.
The hon. Member for Bootle asked why we were using secondary rather than primary legislation. We have had that debate on numerous occasions during this process. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act does not allow the Treasury to make major changes to policy or legal frameworks, and does not give the Government the power to make changes beyond what is needed to correct deficiencies that will arise solely as a result of exit. That is all we are attempting to do today.
The hon. Gentleman asked about scrutiny. As I said in my opening remarks, we published the instrument in draft form on 17 December, along with an explanatory memorandum that sets out how it will operate, maximising transparency to Parliament and the industry. We have had numerous meetings with stakeholders across the financial services sector; they welcome the instrument and believe it is absolutely essential. I am therefore disappointed to hear that any Member would choose to vote against it, because the consequences of doing so would be significant in the event of no deal.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there is a contractual run-off period, and whether that would mean that consumers would not be safeguarded—I think that was one of the implications. The period is precisely to ensure that consumers are protected. The example I gave was of a consumer with a long-duration insurance product that lasted for 10 or 15 years. We would want to ensure that the product could be used and the consumer could make a claim if necessary, and that the provider of that service—for example, an EEA insurance company —could not renege on that by virtue of it being illegal. The regulations protect consumers, and enable us to make a fair, unilateral offer to our partners elsewhere in the EEA.
Contracts and businesses will not be unregulated during that period. They will not be permitted to carry out new business in the UK. The FCA and the PRA will have additional powers over firms, including the power to move firms into the supervised run-off period, in which they would be subject to the full UK regulatory regime, and the power to cancel their exemption altogether. Consumers will not be exposed during that period.
The hon. Gentleman asked for further information on cancellation. The regulators’ powers in respect of a person under the temporary regime are the same as under part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, so there will be no change to the powers available to the regulator to take action.
On our ability to extend the duration of the regime, Lord Bates in the House of Lords made clear that to do that, we would submit a written ministerial statement. That followed the expression of similar concerns in the other place in the consideration of the EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. That clarification has satisfied stakeholders. It is not our intention that extensions will happen in perpetuity; the powers are purely to give greater clarity and certainty to the industry that in extreme circumstances there is an ability to extend, and to ensure that there is no detriment to consumers or business.
Peter Dowd
On the point that the Minister just raised about exceptional circumstances, that is the problem with the totality of the legislation. The Government seem unable to set us on the track to ensuring that we or organisations will eventually have clarity. They seem to be kicking the can down the road all the time. They put things off. They say, “If there is a problem, we will look at it then.” It goes on and on. There is absolutely no clarity for organisations, and the Minister should take that into account.
Robert Jenrick
The legislation has precisely the opposite purpose; its purpose is to provide clarity and certainty to industry. Voting against the regulations will do precisely the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman purports to want to achieve. Of course, the way to provide the greatest certainty to consumers, users of financial services, and the 1.1 million people who work in the sector in all parts of the United Kingdom is to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal—or a deal—before exit day and avoid a no-deal Brexit.
Peter Dowd
The Minister says that organisations welcome the regulations, but at the end of the day, they welcome them because they are the only thing on the table. Would I welcome them, if I were them? I most probably would, because this instrument is the only document I have that gives me any certainty at all—but it is still not good enough.
Robert Jenrick
It is not the view of the industry that this document is not good enough. The industry thinks that this is the final piece in the puzzle; it provides them with the certainty that they require in the event of a no-deal Brexit. There will now be a temporary regime into which financial institutions can pass, should they wish to. If they do not want to do so, or if they do and then ultimately fail to gain the authorisation that they require, the measures before us provide a further safety net to ensure that consumers and those businesses are protected and safeguarded for a period of time as they run off their business in the UK.
With that, unless any other right hon. or hon. Members wish to comment, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Dinenage
This particular area of law has always been open to legal challenge. We decided to include a definition because so many stakeholders, as well as the Law Commission and Members of the other place, thought it essential.
[Official Report, 12 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 802.]
Caroline Dinenage
For example, in the new system a family member or a loved one can be an approved person.
[Official Report, 12 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 803.]
Caroline Dinenage
The wishes and feelings of the vulnerable person are at the centre of the Bill, and the wishes and feelings of their family will definitely be taken into consideration if their family is the approved person. We must always leave a little space in case the person does not want their approved person to be a family member for whatever reason.
[Official Report, 12 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 804.]
Letter of correction from The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage):
Errors have been identified in the response I gave on Amendment 1 to clause 6.
The correct wording should have been:
Caroline Dinenage
This particular area of law has always been open to legal challenge. We decided to include a definition because so many stakeholders, as well as the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Members of the other place, thought it essential”.
Caroline Dinenage
For example, in the new system a family member or a loved one can be an appropriate person.
Caroline Dinenage
The wishes and feelings of the vulnerable person are at the centre of the Bill, and the wishes and feelings of their family will definitely be taken into consideration if their family is the approved person. We must always leave a little space in case the person does not want their appropriate person to be a family member for whatever reason.
Petitions
Bredbury Parkway Industrial Estate Extension
Kings Langley Green Belt
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 2 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
Sunbed Use: Health Implications
(5 years, 2 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
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the health implications of sunbed use.
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Hosie, and I thank my good friend the Minister for responding to this important debate.
The motion asks the House to consider the health implications of using sunbeds, but I would go as far as calling for a ban. Who needs sunbeds? No one. Many people in the UK believe that they look healthier with a tan, but that could not be further from the truth. Bronzed skin was a trend first popularised by Coco Chanel in 1923, and it has never gone away. From St Tropez to Derbyshire, a suntan continues to be a desired accessory. Over time, people have sought to maintain their tan using artificial means, including the sunbed. In the ’60s, sunbeds were developed for the first time, and in the ’80s they began to be used in large numbers. The industry continued to grow throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s. Today, an estimated 3 million Britons use sunbeds to keep themselves tanned.
According to the World Health Organisation, sunbeds are as dangerous as smoking—many people do not realise that—and in 2009 it classified them as carcinogenic to humans. Worryingly, statistics show that people who have used a sunbed at least once, in any stage of their life, have a 20% higher risk of developing melanoma than those who have never used a sunbed. The first use of a sunbed before the age of 35 increases the risk of developing melanoma by 59%.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an important speech. In all honesty, I think of sunbeds as pernicious death machines. They rely on people’s vanity, but we all have elements of vanity in our lives, so let us not decry that. We should be doing far more. One hundred thousand people get a melanoma every year; it is one of the most pernicious forms of cancer, and 10,000 people die. These are death machines, aren’t they?
Mrs Latham
Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we must emphasise the fact that sunbeds are killing machines that nobody needs to use. Nobody needs a tan, and as the hon. Gentleman says, this is purely about vanity. We know there is a lot of vanity in the world, but this is a deadly vanity and it is a waste of everybody’s time and money—sunbeds are also expensive.
Dr Andrew Birnie, a consultant dermatologist and dermatological surgeon, supports the World Health Organisation classification of sunbeds as carcinogenic. He notes that
“it has been shown that the biggest cause of melanoma is high-intensity bursts of ultraviolet light on skin not used to being exposed to UV.”
The World Health Organisations has recommended that countries either ban or limit the use of sunbeds. In reality, there is no such thing as a safe tan unless it comes from a bottle or a can. Indeed, one trainee beautician, Kimberley Platt, said:
“I’m a trainee beautician and part of the course is being taught to spray tan. Our course tutors tell us to steer clear of sunbeds, I wonder why. Has anyone ever looked on Instagram at sunbed burn photos? Horrific. It seems as if to burn, either artificially or in the sun, is somehow a funny thing to do. Dealing with skin cancer is not funny though. Think about the cost of treating skin cancer, not to mention the cost of a life.”
Chris Bryant
Is this particularly an issue in this country because so many people are genetically made for British weather? We have freckles, fair hair and fair skin, which is far more prone to some of the dangers that the hon. Lady mentions.
Mrs Latham
Again, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are not built for the sun; otherwise we would be black. That is why people in Africa do not have the problems that we have. We tend to go on holiday for a couple of weeks, burn like mad, come back and think it is great, but it is damaging to the skin. One need only look at people who spend a long time either on sunbeds or in the sun. When they get older they look like dried-up prunes, and nobody wants to look like a dried-up prune. People think that they are making themselves look healthier, but they are not; they are deeply damaging their skin, and we must try to persuade the Minister that a ban on sunbed use is the only thing we can do.
Frighteningly, over the past 30 years cases of malignant melanoma have more than quadrupled in the UK, and the scary truth is that it is now the second most common form of cancer in those aged 15 to 34. A melanoma is not easy to treat unless caught early. There are around 15,400 new melanoma skin cancer cases in the UK every year—42 every single day. Every 24 hours in the UK, six people die from a melanoma, and in 2016, 2,285 people died of the condition.
In the United States of America, Europe and Australia, combined sunbed use is estimated to have been responsible for more than 450,000 non-melanoma skin cancer cases and more than 10,000 melanoma cases every year. It is no coincidence that the rise in that aggressive form of skin cancer aligns with the popular use of sunbeds. The current updated body of scientific evidence strongly suggests that indoor tanning significantly increases the risk of melanoma. A large amount of data from observational studies provides enough information to infer that sunbed use causes melanoma, using all the epidemiological criteria for causality.
Dr Nicole Chiang, a consultant dermatologist who treats skin cancer patients on a regular basis, has noted that the risk of melanoma more than doubles when sunbeds are used at a young age of below 35 years. Sunbeds cause three times more DNA damage than natural sunlight, and it has been estimated that 20 minutes on a sunbed could be equivalent to approximately four hours in the sun. Just one sunbed session can increase someone’s risk of developing squamous cell skin cancer by 67%, and basal cell skin cancer by 29%. Even more important is the increased risk of melanoma, which is the deadliest form of skin cancer.
I was concerned to learn that data from Cancer Research shows that more than 25% of the UK’s 3 million sunbed users are unconcerned about the dangers that sunbeds pose. Indeed, I was on the radio today and I heard some people talking about this issue. They said, “Well, so what? It doesn’t matter. It will be okay.” I believe it is important to dispel the fake news, often used in the marketing of sunbeds, that they provide a “controlled” way of getting a “safer” tan. Sunbeds are no safer than exposure to the sun.
A 2008 study published in the journal “Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research”—that sounds like something from “Have I Got News For You”—came to the conclusion that to achieve a tan, the skin must be exposed to ultraviolet radiation, and therefore “safe tanning” is a physical impossibility. It is also important to dispel the myths perpetrated by the sunbed industry about vitamin D benefits from sunbeds. Due to the carcinogenic risk associated with sunbeds, their use cannot be justified. We can take a tablet in the winter to ward off vitamin D deficiencies. A further myth is the idea of the base tan—the dangerous and fanciful assertion that getting an initial tan from a sunbed will protect the skin from the sun. Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence explain that getting a tan provides little protection against later exposure to sunlight, and the resulting skin damage outweighs any later protective effect.
Throughout my time in Parliament, I have focused on the prevention and treatment of skin cancer as a result of personal experience. I have had the privilege of working with a cancer charity, Melanoma UK, which I thank for its support in gathering evidence for this debate. I know only too well the devastating effect that that cancer can have on people’s lives. What is most insidious about melanoma in particular is that it is impossible to treat in its late stages, and it often results in a drawn-out, very painful death. Last year I had my own personal scare. I found a mole, which was malignant. After a tortured three weeks waiting for the results I found out that, luckily, the tumour had not spread—but it was malignant. The fear was magnified by the fact that my own brother died from a melanoma when he was only 54. I have therefore always taken a close interest in that type of cancer and its causes.
My brother went to his GP three times in a year before the GP eventually said, “There’s nothing wrong with you, but I will refer you”—just to get him out of his surgery, I think. By that time it was far too late, and my brother died from his melanoma a few years later; but he was never able to work again, because muscle and lymph glands had to be taken away, so he could not do his job. Neither I nor my brother used sunbeds, but given my experience of the awful disease of melanoma I cannot comprehend why anyone would want to increase their risk of contracting it. Research shows that many people who contract it probably would not have done, if they had never been able to use a sunbed.
I want to refer to some case studies highlighting the horrific effect that sunbed use can have on individuals and their loved ones. I thank the House of Commons outreach team for helping me to collate a vast and wide-ranging response, obtained thanks to the power of social media. I am so grateful to those who participated in the initiative. There were some interesting and informative discussions. I was taken aback by the significant number of responses from people who said they regularly used sunbeds in their youth and today have, or have had, a melanoma. One such lady, Jade Luelle Cope, said that she used sunbeds often between the ages of 15 and 32, and was diagnosed with malignant melanoma at 38. She stated that she does not think that it was a coincidence.
Beverley Chesters passionately advocated a ban. Describing her experience, she said,
“without a doubt these killing machines”—
as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) called them earlier—
“need to be banned in a heartbeat!”
She used sunbeds in her late teens and early 20s, when
“it was the norm for everyone to walk about with the supposed ‘healthy glow’. How very naive was I. I cannot recall ever any health warnings regarding sunbeds, and yes a pair of goggles given for eye protection and that’s it! Now all these years later I have malignant melanoma, first diagnosed last August…since then I have 2 more separate melanomas, and also waiting for results of 2 further biopsies. I would not wish this horrible disease on anyone. If only I knew then what I know now I would never ever have put myself in that position of risking my life, all for a tan. My body looks like a patchwork quilt.”
Similarly, Vicki Brennan noted that she used sunbeds and now has a malignant melanoma. Tragically, she comments:
“If I knew the statistics back then I would have made an informed decision not to use them, it scares me to think how many people are putting themselves at risk. And as for banality...Tell this to the thousands enduring treatment and those who are dying. You don’t just cut skin cancer out and carry on as normal. Please ban sun beds.”
A lady who came to a meeting that I was chairing had four young children, and was only in her 30s. She knew she was not going to survive, because she had a melanoma. She was going to leave the four young children for her husband to bring up, and they would not know their mother at all because they were so young.
The heartbreaking consequences of melanoma, aligning with sunbed use, were highlighted by Elaine Broadhurst. She said she and her brother used sunbeds as teenagers.
“We had one in our own home. There was no legislation or advice on the dangers. My brother was diagnosed with melanoma and died from it two years ago aged 46, leaving a wife and two young children. I’m convinced that the sunbed use contributed to losing my brother to this deadly disease and that sunbeds should be banned.”
Hundreds of people wrote similar testimonials, which illustrate the huge personal impact that the condition has on people’s lives, and the regret that many feel, having used a sunbed repeatedly and contracted the condition as a consequence. I encourage Members to take the time to read through some of the comments on the House of Commons Facebook page.
It is important to stress that it is clear that the majority of people use sunbeds purely for cosmetic reasons and vanity. The significance and dangers of cosmetic tanning are supported by many case studies and scientific research. It is said that people feel more confident, and sometimes even slimmer, when they are bronzed. However, in reality, over time when people over-use sunbeds their skin can age prematurely, making it look coarse, leathery and wrinkled—prune-like. In the worst-case scenario sunbeds can cause burns, scars and ulcers known as basal cell carcinomas. Dr Birnie observed that there has been rising incidence of the condition in younger people, and especially in women who have used tanning beds in their teens and early 20s. I am sure that that is not the aesthetic that young people craving a tan are trying to achieve.
I am particularly concerned to learn of a trend towards sun tanning addiction, where people use the sunbed for a quick and lasting tan. Some research suggests that as many as one in 50 sunbed users are addicted to them. There are stories of people using a sunbed daily for a long period of time. I was on Radio Sussex this morning and a lady said she had for three years used a sunbed at home for an hour a day. She now has a melanoma. That is excessive use, but lower use is still deadly. Scientists from Germany and the US recently published a study showing that almost 20% of indoor tanning users have addictive symptoms.
I would like high street tanning salons that offer sunbeds to raise awareness of the potential health implications of using sunbeds, as happens with cigarette packets. I understand that the British Association of Dermatologists has explained that many tanning salons fail to provide adequate information. However, I should prefer an outright ban to the use of nasty pictures of people with burns.
There is work to be done outside the legislative reach of Parliament. I would encourage the fashion and beauty industry to take an active role in discouraging the use of sunbeds. I commend initiatives previously adopted by the fashion industry, such as when in 2012 Kate Moss and her then modelling agency, Storm, aimed to raise awareness of the dangers associated with sunbeds, to put heavy tans out of fashion. At the same time directors from 11 UK model agencies including Elite, Premier Model Management, Storm and Next signed up to a zero tolerance policy on sunbed use, to protect new and established models from the health and cosmetic effects of using ultraviolet tanning beds. It would be good to see such work continue and perhaps go further. Perhaps there should be more articles in girls’ and women’s magazines to explain the dangers of tanning in that way. We all know that models are generally young and thin—that is another issue—but they do not need a tan to look beautiful. Twiggy, in the 60s, was pretty beautiful, and she has continued to be. I doubt whether she uses a sunbed.
In 2003 the World Health Organisation responded to the serious public health challenge and published a guidance document on sunbed legislation. Since then, a number of organisations and individuals in the UK have called for an outright ban on the use of commercial sunbeds. We should also look at the practice of selling them privately, because there is then no control over how people use them. The Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010 banned the use of sunbeds by under-18s, but many people feel that the ban did not go far enough. It was a start, but only an all-out ban is acceptable. That idea is being explored by our European partners. France’s health watchdog says that the risk of cancer from sunlamps and sunbeds is proven and authorities should act to stop people being exposed to artificial ultraviolet rays. France is one of a number of countries that have already limited their use.
I know that many members of the public support the banning of sunbeds. I was very pleased that Melanoma UK’s recent petition to ban sunbeds in the UK received in excess of 15,000 signatures. While I received a mixture of responses on both sides of the argument from the parliamentary outreach exercise, I was struck by the support from some people in the beauty industry. I am pleased that some individuals in the industry have recognised the dangers of sunbeds and champion the safe alternative of a spray tan.
One such example is Tonina Healey, a beauty salon owner who took the decision to ban the use of tanning beds in her salon and instead has promoted a spray tan. She said:
“I have always been very uncomfortable at the use of sunbeds. I took the decision to stop the use of tanning beds in my salon, I think one of the things that should be of major concern to all salon owners, is the issue of control. I have seen articles relating to tanning addiction and of clients going from salon to salon in order to achieve ‘double’ sessions. No one in the beauty industry can legislate for that and I for one, do not want to invite a lawsuit my way—does anyone in this industry really need that kind of hassle? I do believe that that will come one day, a salon in the UK will be sued when someone develops melanoma. I don’t want that on my plate and I certainly don’t want the illness of a client on my conscience. We trained in beauty to make our clients feel good, not to watch them die horrific deaths. We support a ban.”
Brazil and Australia have already banned sunbeds commercially. Brazil was the first to ban sunbeds in 2009, the only exception being where doctors prescribed their use for health reasons. In the same year, the World Health Organisation classified exposure to UV sunlamps, sunbeds and tanning booths as carcinogenic to humans. Australia followed Brazil’s ban in 2013. Annual rates of malignant melanoma in Australia were 10 times the rate in Europe for women, and more than 20 times for men. Professor Grant McArthur stresses the success of the ban in Australia, saying:
“The Sunbed ban in Australia has been highly effective. We estimate that one unnecessary death per week has been prevented by the ban. The greatest burden of deaths from Sunbeds falls in people aged 20-40. I plead that the UK save their young people by banning sunbeds”.
To conclude, it is my view that there should be an outright ban on sunbeds, and I hope I will receive the support of colleagues in that. While the temptation to achieve that sun-kissed glow is understandable, risking contracting such a devastating disease is not. The unnecessary exposure to UV is nonsensical, and I implore anyone to get a fake tan through a bottle or can, not the sunbed. It seems wrong that people should have the option of damaging their health so greatly, purely in pursuit of cosmetic gratification.
The evidence is clear: for over three decades, deliberate sunbed exposure to UV for cosmetic purposes through sunbeds has been driving up the incidence of skin cancers and driving down the age of their first appearance. I stress again the shocking figures that people who have ever used a sunbed are 20% more likely to develop melanoma later in life than people who have never used one, and those who started using sunbeds before the age of 35 were 87% more likely to develop melanoma than people who have never used a sunbed.
I also believe that action needs to be taken to further raise awareness of melanomas and what causes them, including over-exposure to UV through sunbeds. That action should include providing stronger and clearer warnings about the consequences of sunbed usage. Being aware of the possible consequences of the sunbed should lead to a cultural and generational shift, with people avoiding exposing themselves to UV unnecessarily. It is vital that people are conscious of the impact that this awful condition can have on one’s health and personal life—something that I myself have experienced through my own personal circumstances. Please may we have a ban on sunbeds?
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this important and emotive debate.
Good health is a precious gift, which most of us will hopefully be able to maintain throughout our life by ensuring that we have a balanced diet, take regular exercise and make appropriate lifestyle choices. However, one lifestyle choice that appears not to be beneficial is the frequent use of sunbeds, which give out potentially harmful ultraviolet, or UV, rays.
According to Cancer Research UK,
“sunbeds are no safer than exposure to the sun itself”.
The damage to the DNA in our skin cells builds up over time, possibly resulting in skin cancer, of which melanoma is the deadliest form. NHS research illustrates that people
“who are frequently exposed to UV rays before the age of 25 are at greater risk of developing skin cancer later in life.”
Over the last decade, the number of people diagnosed with melanoma in the United Kingdom has increased by almost half, and it is the fifth most common cancer in the United Kingdom. However, not only have UV rays been linked to the increased risk of developing melanoma, but they may result in premature ageing of the skin, and eye damage may occur if proper and effective eye protection is not applied.
Sadly, some people continue to put body image before their personal health, perhaps inspired by the media coverage of celebrities and models they seek to emulate. That is despite the fact that the risk of cancer is constantly being highlighted by the NHS throughout the UK, with various charities giving the same advice; indeed, the issue was the subject of a debate in the main Chamber only nine days ago.
In recognition of the potential dangers, it is illegal for people under 18 years to use sunbeds at commercial premises, including beauty salons, leisure centres, gyms and hotels. Use is controlled in England and Wales by the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010, and Northern Ireland has passed delegated legislation in the form of regulations, providing a health warning with information that must be imparted to sunbed users. That information explains that those who use sunbeds for the first time before the age of 35 increase their risk of developing malignant melanoma by around a staggering 75%. Scotland has similar but less specific information in the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Act 2008 (Sunbed) Regulations 2009.
In 2009, the Health and Safety Executive was so concerned that it issued revised guidance on sunbed use in the UK. It is clear about the health risks associated with using UV tanning equipment such as sunbeds, sunlamps and tanning booths. However, any legislation is only as good as the enforcement, and that needs to be extremely robust. I would welcome any measures from the Minister that further protect the public from what is in effect a form of self-harm, emanating from the unnecessary pursuit of that perfect appearance. One measure he may wish to consider is raising the age limit from 18 years or consulting on a ban. Equally importantly, however, I ask those using or considering using sunbeds to weigh up the risk that it might present, not immediately but in later life. I said at the start that good health is a precious gift: why, oh why, would we as individuals put that gift at risk?
In closing, it is worthy of note that, properly utilised by experts in the field, and particularly medical staff in the NHS, light rays and phototherapy have a place in the treatment of skin conditions such as psoriasis and eczema, but they are not the same as tanning sunbeds.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
One of the great pleasures of being in Parliament is that I learn new things on a regular basis. I must confess that, prior to coming to this debate, I had, as a peely-wally, fair-skinned, red-headed Scotsman, always avoided the sun and had no experience of sunlamps. It was fascinating to learn about them, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this debate and for her informative presentation, taking us through the history and many of the health problems. She presented some fantastic statistics, including the fact that sunbeds are used by 3 million people and that they cause three times the DNA damage of sunlight. Her case studies brought home the very human nature of this problem.
There is no doubt that UV rays from sunbeds can damage DNA in skin cells, which, building up over time, can cause skin cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer—IARC—accepts that there is enough evidence to show that sunbeds cause melanoma skin cancer, and further states that sunbeds provide no health benefits. That is a fundamental point. It also highlights that sunbed use before the age of 35 significantly increases the risk of melanoma; both earlier speakers used statistics, and the statistics I found last night put the range at 59% to 79% more likely. I do not know the actual figure, and I am interested to hear whether the other Front Benchers have a firmer handle on it. Either way, those figures are frightening.
Those figures are, however, hotly contested by the sunbed industry, which points out that, when professional sunbed use is separated from home use, it has no increased melanoma risk. The industry also highlights the benefits of UVB radiation in treating vitamin D deficiency. While I have no doubt that professional sunbed use will be safer than home use, it is no safer than exposure to the sun. The World Health Organisation classifies sunbeds as a group 1 carcinogen. A WHO director, Dr Maria Neira, says:
“There’s no doubt about it: sunbeds are dangerous to our health”.
I certainly take that warning very seriously.
The Scottish National party recognises the potential harmful effects of sunbed use—or misuse—and has taken action. The Public Health etc. (Scotland) Act 2008, implemented under an SNP-led Government, contains provisions to regulate sunbed use, as well as measures that include prohibiting unsupervised use, banning the use of sunbeds by under-18s and banning the sale and hire of sunbeds to under-18s.
It is imperative that people using sunbeds realise the health implications and risks of doing so, so that they can make an informed decision about their use. The 2008 Act has provisions requiring all sunbed premises to display a health notice visible to anybody entering them and to provide information to customers on the risks, allowing them to make an informed choice.
A Scottish Government leaflet highlights those risks, and reading it earlier in the week gave me my first pieces of information about sunbed use—I have to say that it ticks quite a few of the boxes that would frighten me off ever going on a sunbed, and I encourage the public to have a serious look at it. In addition to the higher risk of skin cancer, it highlights the risk of eye damage—including the higher risk of cataracts if appropriate eye protection is not worn—and of accelerated skin damage, including premature ageing of the skin, which was well covered by the earlier speakers. The leaflet concludes:
“These health risks outweigh any potential benefits in using sunbeds to supplement vitamin D.”
There we have it. There are plenty of warnings about sunbeds, and I will certainly avoid using them. Indeed, I slap factor 50 sun cream on if I walk along Princes Street on a slightly cloudy day. I will leave my remarks at that. I thank hon. Members for an informative debate. I have learned a considerable amount about this issue.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for her passionate and excellent speech and for so bravely sharing her own experience with melanoma, which makes it all the more delightful that she is with us in such fine health this morning. I am very sorry to hear about her brother, but I am pleased that her diagnosis was found early and was successfully treated. I also thank the hon. Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for their excellent contributions.
It is fair to say that the health implications of using sunbeds once dominated public consciousness. Almost 10 years ago, when the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010 was introduced by the former Labour MP for Cardiff North and passed by a Labour Government, the health risks that came with using sunbeds were well known and well talked about. I remember a parliamentary reception with celebrities such as Nicola Roberts from Girls Aloud speaking out loud and clear about the dangers of sunbeds.
Roberts spoke as someone in the public eye who felt compelled to be tanned—despite being of ginger complexion and very fair skinned—and to constantly use tanning products. She bravely said that she was coming to a point in her life where she wanted to be her natural colour. However, that was 10 years ago, and we should have come a lot further, but owing to vanity or whatever, everyone still goes in search of that elusive tan. As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire says, we do not need a tan; it should not be something that we desire.
The issue has certainly not been talked about in a long time, not least in the House, where between January 2011 and February 2019—more than eight years—the word “sunbeds” has been said only 16 times. It is therefore very welcome that the hon. Lady has brought this issue to the fore once again, because there is a generation of young people who will not really understand the risks of sunbed use. They will not know that the short, high-intensity exposure to UV radiation provided by sunbeds is dangerous and can dramatically increase the risk of skin cancer. Looking tanned might seem desirable when we are young, but I doubt, as the hon. Lady said, that looking aged with skin damage several years along the line will be as desirable. I invoke the dried-up prune analogy once again: we have all seen them on the beaches, haven’t we?
It is important that we get the message about the health risks across to young people, particularly because people frequently exposed to UV rays before the age of 25 are at a greater risk of developing skin cancer later in life. I have to admit that that statistic greatly worries me. I confess that, as a young woman in the 1980s, before we knew what we know now, I used sunbeds, although not as often as some. It was obvious that they could not be that good for me, but I did not realise how bad they were for me. I often used them to get a base tan before going on holiday, because we all believed that we would look after our skin better if we got a base tan before going abroad. As the hon. Lady said, that is a total fallacy. Has the Minister therefore made any assessment of how many young people know the risks of sunbed use, and does he have any plan to address the issue?
All the Government information on sunbed use dates back to 2009 and 2010, despite more relevant information being published since. For example, the WHO published a 2017 report entitled “Artificial Tanning Devices: Public Health Interventions to Manage Sunbeds”. The IARC also assessed UV-emitting tanning devices as “carcinogenic to humans” based on consistent evidence of a positive association between their use and the incidence of melanoma.
As we have heard, melanoma is on the increase in the UK, and it is estimated that the NHS will spend £465 million on treating skin cancer patients by 2025. I pay tribute to charities such as Melanoma UK and MelanomaMe., which was set up in my constituency in 2017 by Kerry Rafferty and Elaine Taylor—I met them in 2017 when opening an awareness event for them in Sunderland—after one of them suffered from melanoma and the devastation it wreaked on her life and body. Charities such as Melanoma UK and MelanomaMe. support patients and their families and raise awareness of skin cancers and the risks of sun exposure and, of course, sunbed use.
The Minister knows how strongly I feel that the Government have an obligation to prevent cancers, and I know he is passionate about doing so. That is why I believe that the Government must look at sunbed regulations again, to assess whether they need to be updated almost 10 years on since they were first published. It must be a priority for the Government to ensure that people know the risks of sunbed use before using them, as well as during and after their use. For example, people are told that smoking is harmful before they take it up, but guidance does not disappear once they have started smoking or even once they have stopped. Even though they may carry on smoking, everyone who smokes will admit to knowing the health risks. We are not at that stage with sunbed use.
It is easy to shrug off health warnings when it comes to sunbed use, because the symptoms of skin damage may not appear for up to 20 years. However, skin damage can have very serious implications, as we have heard, so the warnings must not be shrugged off. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire called for a ban on sunbeds across the UK, like in Australia and other countries. Although I can see why she calls for a ban, I feel that we must first allow the Government to look at all the most recent evidence and make an assessment. They should definitely update the regulations if necessary and ensure that younger generations are made aware, at the earliest stage, of the risks of sunbed use.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, this issue was very much in the public consciousness almost 10 years ago, and perhaps it is time to ensure that it is again. I am sure the Minister will take on board all that he has heard this morning, and I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) very much. We use the term “hon. Friend” a lot in this place, but she knows that she is my very good friend as well as my hon. Friend. Well done to her for securing the debate.
I was interested to hear the word search statistic from my shadow, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). It was very interesting, but not at all surprising. The hon. Lady and I spend a lot of time in Westminster Hall, but this is not an issue that we have covered before, although we have obviously covered cancer a lot. This issue affects so many people’s lives. We heard from my good and hon. Friend about how it has impacted on her family and, as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, it was very good to hear that she herself has managed to deal with it successfully.
I do not know about other hon. Members, but sunbeds feel very 1980s to me. As someone who was at secondary school in the 1980s, I thought that they had been left behind there, because we do not hear much about them these days, but it occurs to me that there is a large sunbed salon in my constituency of Winchester. There is a reason why the 1980s came into my mind. Hon. Members may remember an episode of “Only Fools and Horses” called “Tea for Three”. The infamous character Trigger has a niece whom Del and Rodney remember from her much younger years and who comes to stay with Trigger for a period. The niece, Lisa, is now 25 and—well, let’s just say that she has matured into a very attractive young lady. Del and Rodney set out to impress her, both thinking that they have a chance. I remember the episode well, and the reason why it is relevant to the debate is that Rodney decides to lie on the sunbed in the flat at Nelson Mandela House to improve his look for young Lisa and falls asleep. Del then turns up the dial, and Rodney spends the rest of the episode with a bright red face—in many ways. It is interesting that tanning was portrayed in that sitcom as a technique to attract the ladies. It backfired, as everything seemed to, on poor Rodney, but it was interesting how it was used and it explains why I connect sunbeds with the 1980s. As we have heard today, however, sunbeds and their impact are very much current phenomena.
As my hon. Friend is keenly aware, there are huge health consequences from exposure to both natural and artificial ultraviolet radiation. The most significant is of course skin cancer, which we have talked about, but there are other impacts, such as sunburn, which is very unpleasant and uncomfortable, accelerated skin ageing—the “prune” factor that we have discussed—eye inflammation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) mentioned, and temporary immunosuppression. Importantly, though, there are measures that we all know we can take to reduce the impact of exposure to UV radiation from the sun, such as using sunscreen and seeking shade. Equally, there are many precautions that should be taken when using sunbeds, such as only using a staffed facility that provides guidance to users and limiting regular use of a sunbed. I will come on to those two points. Younger people who use sunbeds are at greater risk, which is why in 2011, regulations were introduced banning the use of sunbeds by under-18s in England and Wales, as we have heard.
Melanoma skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the UK today. About 15,500 new cases of melanoma are diagnosed each year and more than 2,000 people die every year in the UK from melanoma. In recent years, skin cancer has become much more common in the UK, which is thought to be the result of increased exposure to intense sunlight on holidays abroad. Many people these days can afford foreign holidays, which come with much fun but also many dangers. It is worth noting that more than one quarter of skin cancer cases are diagnosed in people under 50, which is unusually early compared with most other types of cancer. Cancer Research UK estimates that 86% of skin cancers are preventable. I often say in Westminster Hall debates—my shadow will have heard me say this many times—that two thirds of cancers are down to bad luck and one third of cancers are preventable. When we consider the high percentage of skin cancers that are preventable, we realise that this is an area where we can move the dial in the prevention space. That is why I am interested in today’s debate and so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire for initiating it.
My hon. Friend referred to the many people who would not have skin cancer if they had not used sunbeds. It is difficult to be certain about how many cases of skin cancer are due to sunbed use, as most people will also have had natural exposure to UV from the sun. Obviously, there are a few people who have skin conditions that mean that they must remain 100% covered up or who do not go outside, for other health reasons. It is vital—my hon. Friend made this point very well, as did others—that the public are fully aware of the risk from their overall exposure to UV and how to minimise the risks.
We have not mentioned vitamin D much in this debate. Vitamin D is a hormone that is very important in musculoskeletal health, and vitamin D synthesis is triggered in the skin through exposure to UVB, including from sunbeds. However, we do not advise people to use sunbeds to enhance vitamin D levels, because any beneficial effect of increased vitamin D synthesis is outweighed by the adverse effects that we have heard about in the debate. We recommend alternative sources of vitamin D, such as dietary supplements.
Public Health England, for which I am responsible, discourages the use of sunbeds for cosmetic tanning, and rightly so. Those individuals who have very fair skin, who burn easily in the sun—I think of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) when I say that, and it certainly applies to me—or who have had skin cancer previously would be at increased risk and obviously are advised not to use a sunbed. This is the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made about the race that we are and the part of the world in which we live.
The Be Clear on Cancer campaigns, which Public Health England leads on behalf of the Government, are designed to raise the public’s awareness of specific cancer symptoms, encourage people with those symptoms to go to the doctor, and promote the diagnosis of cancer at an early stage. We are about to roll out the next iteration of the Be Clear on Cancer campaign, about cervical cancer, on which there was a big debate in this Chamber last month, and we have had the campaign on breast cancer in the past. It is fair to say that there is no shortage of applications for the next iteration of Be Clear on Cancer. And often we are limited in what we can do in those campaigns in relation to the impact that people would then be driven into the health service. However, one of the things that I will take away from this debate is that it would be well worth my placing on the radar of the Be Clear on Cancer team melanoma and skin cancers generally for the campaign as we roll it forward. That will hopefully be one positive outcome from the debate.
It is critical—it is important that Health Ministers say this at the Dispatch Box—that people are aware of their skin. They need to be skin aware—in the same way as so many women have, hopefully, been trained to be breast aware—and to seek advice from their GP if they notice any changes, particularly in terms of moles that itch, bleed or change shape. I remember being taught that as a youngster and I wonder whether the younger generation are still as aware of that health message, but Be Clear on Cancer is something that we can look to with hope.
Let me touch on regulation. The Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010 came into force in April 2011 in England and Wales, as has been mentioned, to prohibit under-18s from using sunbeds. Restrictions on sunbed use by under-18s also apply in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. Guidance has been provided to support local authorities’ authorised officers in successfully implementing the Act, by providing information on the duties of businesses and how to carry out inspections. The local environmental health departments in England are responsible for monitoring and inspecting sunbed salons everywhere, except those situated in local authority leisure centres, which are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. It is worth making that distinction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire talked about banning sunbeds. Should they be banned? A range of options to minimise the adverse effects of sunbeds has been considered. Public Health England has contributed to the most recent World Health Organisation review, published in 2017, on the public health interventions to manage sunbeds. Banning sunbeds was one option under consideration, but the adverse impacts need to be considered carefully to avoid unintended consequences, such as increased use of home machines—like Del and Rodney had—with more harmful impacts.
We have to be aware of the unintended consequences. One of the unintended consequences of banning the use of commercial sunbeds by under-18s was the opening of a market for home hire of second-hand sunbed equipment and sunbed parties—believe it or not. I have been to many parties in my time, but I have yet to be invited to a sunbed party. The mind boggles—it is probably best to leave it there. My swimming trunks have not had an outing for years, but that is probably for the best. It is vital to equip people with the information to avoid the risks of over-exposure to UV radiation. In this way, we empower individuals to protect themselves from UV sources.
Before I address prevention, diagnosis and treatment, I will respond directly to my hon. Friend’s suggestion that sunbeds should be banned. I think we need to look at the regulations again, as the shadow Minister mentioned. They have not been changed for a number of years. My hon. Friend has brought this issue to this Chamber with great force, intelligence and evidence. Now is a good time because we have published the prevention strategy and we are working on a Green Paper on prevention. I am interested in any and every idea that is related to prevention.
As a Minister, I am often given papers by officials, and stuff to look at and sign off. However, in this process of preparing the Green Paper on prevention I can say to my officials, “I want real blue-sky thinking here. I want you to look out into academia, to see where the really interesting and cutting-edge work is going on around prevention and future prevention.” This Green Paper process is really open-minded and based on open-source planning. If we look at the evidence and think that banning the commercial use of sunbeds, while taking into account the possible unintended consequences, could be part of prevention, I will not rule it out. I absolutely do not rule that out.
Wherever possible, the aim is to prevent skin cancer from developing in the first place. I met Melanoma UK at the Britain Against Cancer conference just before Christmas. It has a fantastic team, who I am sure have been very helpful to my hon. Friend ahead of today’s debate. I am proud to say that Public Health England and Melanoma UK have had great success in raising awareness of the risks, and the actions to take to reduce the risk of exposure to the sun and the use of sunbeds. The Health and Safety Executive plays a vital role in raising awareness through leaflets and posters, reflecting its guidance for tanning salons and their customers about the safe operation of sunbeds. My hon. Friend used many quotes from people who are engaged in this issue. One interesting quote was from the lady who runs a salon and said that she wants people to feel good about coming into her business, and that sending people away with a potentially life-threatening condition is not a good look for any business. That was an important point.
A tan may give you a so-called healthy glow. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock pointed to the magazines and the media image: people always have that healthy glow. However, I have never thought of a good tan as a healthy glow. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, published in February 2016, is clear that there is no healthy way to tan. The idea that there is such a thing as a healthy tan, as my hon. Friend said in her opening remarks, is a myth. Any tan can increase your risk of developing skin cancer, whether through natural or artificial UV, and getting a tan does very little to protect your skin from the harmful effects of the sun, which is my hon. Friend’s fundamental point.
NICE, NHS England and cancer charities, including Cancer Research UK and Macmillan, are all clear that if you want browner-looking skin, fake tan is the way to go. It is much safer to use a fake tan product on your skin than to sunbathe or use a sunbed. As the expression goes, “Fake it, don’t bake it”. I think that is what they say in the Department of Health and Social Care these days. I do not know whether you are aware of that, Mr Hosie.
I hope that I have covered a lot of the points that have been raised. I hope that I have demonstrated the Government’s commitment—my commitment—to improving outcomes for people in this country living with skin cancer, and the many more who are at real risk of developing this disease. The Government’s ambitions outlined in the long-term plan for the NHS, the Secretary of State’s prevention strategy, and the Green Paper will ensure that we strive to do even better over the next decade. In conclusion, I agree completely with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk that, while we learn a lot in this place, there is a lot of repetition in many of the debates, but that this debate has not been one of those.
Mrs Latham
I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response. I hope that we can get something in the Be Clear on Cancer campaign and the Green Paper, because that would take us to the next stage. If we can prevent melanomas, it will obviously be a good thing. I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda, who talked about killing machines. Unfortunately, he is no longer in his place, as he has had to become a diplomat, educating the Germans to be diplomatic.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who all made thoughtful contributions. This issue does have a very 1980s feel, as the Minister illustrated with the good example from “Only Fools and Horses”. However, it is still happening.
The Minister said that education is very important. I support a campaign for “Sun Safe Schools” in Mid Derbyshire. We had a broadcaster who died in his early 30s from a melanoma—not from sunbeds. A lot of the money raised for him was spent in schools to make them sun-safe schools, where children learn an amazing little song about slipping on a T-shirt, slapping on a hat and slopping on sunscreen. It educates not just the children, but their parents: keep covered up and keep the sun cream on.
That did not happen in my day. When I was a child, there was no sun factor. We just put on Nivea, got burnt and put on camomile lotion after that. Today, there are options for people and it is important that we educate as many children as possible, because they will educate their parents. I actually challenge builders in the street if I see them without a top on, getting burnt, and ask them if they put on sunscreen. They are very polite, usually, about my intervention.
We need to keep talking about this issue, because I passionately feel that nobody should die from a melanoma. There are familial traits, but we need to educate as many people as possible about sunbed use and over-exposure to the sun, whether on the beach, in the countryside or in the back garden. If the Minister could include it in the Green Paper, it would be an excellent step forward.
However, I would still like not only a ban on sunbeds in commercial premises, but a total ban on the sale of sunbeds in this country. I know that is draconian, and I am not a great “banner” of things, but nobody needs a sunbed—they are not necessary to anybody’s life. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response. I hope that this has moved the debate forward. Since it is 10 years since anything has happened on this issue, let us hope it is not another 10 years before we move forward again on this particular type of cancer.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the health implications of sunbed use.
Education Funding: Cheshire
(5 years, 2 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
Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered education funding in Cheshire.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I am grateful to the Minister for being present to respond to this important debate. I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet headteachers in my constituency, and I am delighted to be joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who share my concerns about this important matter—I know that there might not be enough time for my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton to make a full speech, because this is only a short debate. I also notice that friends from across the House are present, including the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson).
I acknowledge the support that has been provided nationally to date, including the £1 billion increase in funding, the extra support for teachers’ pay and pensions and for capital spend, and the increase in overall education funding since 2010. However, increases in costs are outstripping that extra funding, and there are discrepancies and differences in school funding in different parts of the country. The funding of Cheshire’s schools is, and will be, seriously negatively impacted by its geography, rurality and perceived needs, or lack of needs. We will explain some, and hopefully most, of the key issues in the time that we have, so that if the Minister does not have time to go through everything, he will be able to meet us and address those funding shortcomings.
First, Cheshire East Council is considering its three-year budget forecast to 2020-21 and its calculations for its maintained schools, and it says that by March 2021, 50% of maintained schools in the borough will be reporting a deficit in excess of £100,000. The total forecast deficit will equal £9.2 million—that is 10% of those schools’ funding—which will affect 38 schools in the borough. Cheshire’s national funding formula consultation identified cost increases of 8% from 2016-17 to 2019-20, but funding in Cheshire East has only increased by approximately 2%. As the lowest-funded authority, our schools already have lean budget plans, which makes addressing those pressures even more challenging than in other areas. The current national formula is shifting resources away from areas—such as Cheshire East—with relatively low deprivation levels, reducing basic funding levels and not leaving enough to run the schools.
Under those conditions, it is not possible in Cheshire East to meet the headline minimum per pupil levels in all cases. Where school deficits are exceeding £100,000, schools will have to look at reorganising, whether that means creating federations or possibly closing. That will not meet the needs of families and children in Cheshire East, because the money will be diverted into transportation to get children to their schools. The pressures on special educational needs services continue to grow, particularly given the contribution of £6,000 that schools need to make. I have been told that because of that contribution, some schools might refuse to take children with special educational needs, or that schools that are all-inclusive and do accept those pupils will face an extra strain on their budget.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Presumably, the right hon. Lady was sitting at the Cabinet table in July when the latest school funding formula was discussed. I do not know whether she made representations to the Chancellor at the time, or even pressed the Cabinet for a vote, as there are well-documented claims that she did in the case of Brexit. We share some of her analysis of school funding cuts, but this matters when it comes to the Division Lobby, and in the right hon. Lady’s case, when it comes to her collective responsibility as a member of the Cabinet.
Ms McVey
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the fact that the extra £1 billion was put in place was particularly due to the pressure applied by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton and for Eddisbury. As I only returned to the House at the 2017 election, I too applied pressure, because I think it is vital that schools get the money they need for education. For me, education is one of the key building blocks of social mobility that every child needs, so I did indeed make sure that we pressed for further funding. I would like that to be on the record.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pressure that was put on by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and myself, and indeed by other hon. Members who met with the Minister to ensure that a minimum level of funding was applied, resulted from the particular problems in Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester? Does she also agree that those problems are linked to the formula by which rurality is calculated, which is as the crow flies, rather than as the car or bus travels?
Ms McVey
If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will continue a little bit further, because I do not have much time. This is only a 30-minute debate, and I know the Minister has to respond, so I want to raise a couple of key points about Cheshire West and Chester. However, I know that the hon. Lady has done a lot in this area, and has a lot of knowledge about it.
The key challenge in Cheshire West and Chester is that it is funded below the average of all local authorities, due to the emphasis in the national funding formula on funding areas of deprivation and areas with higher living costs. Under that formula, Cheshire West and Chester is funded at the minimal level of funding for all local authorities for early years provision, meaning provision for three and four-year-olds. In 2018-19 and 2019-20, Cheshire West and Chester has received the minimum 0.5% increase in school core funding, but in the same period, local government officers’ payment bills have increased by 5.6% and teachers’ pay costs have increased above the anticipated public sector pay cap. Spending is outstripping the funding that is going into that area, and as a result, Cheshire’s primary schools are now 44% less funded than London’s primary schools and its secondary schools are 49% less funded than in London.
My key questions to the Minister are as follows. Will he commit to look again at rural funding and address the discrepancy? Does he accept that the increase in costs is outstripping the increase in funding? Will he provide support when local authorities have to use independent schools to meet specific needs? Will he support Cheshire in creating additional special educational needs places, and provide capital investment to enable that to happen? Will he also look at the apprenticeship levy and whether it needs to be applied to schools, and if that is the case, make sure that the levy can be used in a wider context—maybe training, rather than just apprenticeships? Will he ensure that in the forthcoming spending review, he applies for more funds for the Cheshire area, now that he understands the discrepancies in funding in that area?
As I said, although we appreciate the money that has come in, when we look at how that money is filtering through, we see that there are still needs. Additionally, given the increase in housing and development in the Cheshire area that we all know about, considerably more pupils will be wanting to go to school. There are more children with needs in that area, including complex needs, and more demands are being placed on the local authorities of Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to give a full response to those questions today, but will he agree to a subsequent meeting, so that we can all work together to make sure that our area gets the right funding for its children?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey) for allowing me to contribute to the debate, which we applied for jointly.
Before the debate, I wrote to every primary and high school headteacher in my constituency. All seven senior school headteachers, whether in free schools, academies or multi-academy trusts, sent a collective response stating that they cannot remember morale being so low, the main reason being the lack of funding into schools, and that standards—high in Cheshire East—will be adversely affected.
The heads asked me to bring four key messages to Parliament. I will quote their words, which are strong:
“The Government must stop misleading the country by stating that record amounts are being spent on education when”,
according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, since 2010, in Cheshire East
“the amount spent per child has fallen in real terms by 8%.”
Secondly, they say:
“The Government must commit to an index linked approach to the national formula so that all schools are able to deal with changes that are outside of their control, such as increased employer NI and pension contributions”,
as well as underfunded pay awards and other cost pressures. They say that there has been a 10% rise in staff costs in our schools since 2017 alone. Their third and fourth points are:
“The Government must demonstrate that every school in the country will gain enough funding via the Age Weighted Pupil Unit to run a school regardless of the characteristics of its pupils.
The Government should provide a long-term commitment to educational funding in a similar manner to the National Health Service.”
A major issue, say the heads, is that schools go from year to year with no annual Government statements or decisions about school funding, so there is no long-term planning. That makes it impossible for heads to plan or budget for the future. I have known most of them for many years and, dedicated as they are, it is remarkable that they carry on under the relentless pressure they experience year on year. One says:
“the role of the Head Teacher is becoming an impossible responsibility to fulfil, due to significant constraints on the financial viability of schools.”
To quote the seven heads again,
“school finances in Cheshire East are in a terrible state, despite the NFF promises made in July 2017.”
The Schools Minister knows that that was when funding of £4,800 per secondary school pupil was announced as a result, as we have heard, of a sustained campaign by headteachers, including those in my constituency. In Cheshire East, however, the heads tell me that they are not receiving £4,800. Instead, they receive: £4,018 for every key stage 3 child, £4,804 for every key stage 4 child and £3,971 for every key stage 5 child. That represents a reduction of 1% each year since 2014. Overall expenditure on school sixth forms has fallen in real terms by 16.3% since 2014. Funding for 16 to 19-year-olds is now 21% lower than funding for 11 to 16-year-olds, which makes it very difficult to run a broad sixth-form curriculum.
What is the impact of such figures on our schools? The heads state:
“Pastoral support…cut or removed at a time when the need is greater than ever…Class sizes have increased to unmanageable numbers and teacher contact ratios have been increased…over what is acceptable. SEN needs of pupils are not being met as they should. Courses have been cut, especially at KS5…denying many young people the opportunity to study what they want to. The…potential closure of multiple post-16 institutions across Cheshire East…Schools are having to continually restructure at all levels…to save money”,
reducing support for young people and staff year after year. Many schools have recently undergone ICFP—integrated curriculum financial planning—reviews, as recommended by the Government. The independent advisers said they cannot see where any savings can be made without the impacts I have just listed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) also continues to work hard to support schools in his constituency. As a Minister, he is not able to participate in the debate, but I am grateful to him for having organised a meeting, as a local MP, with the Secretary of State. Before his ministerial appointment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and I were able to discuss with him the important issue of school funding.
I turn now to primary schools. Many heads wrote to me—too many to quote them all, so I will quote just some:
“Finding it impossible to balance our budget.”
“Costs continue to escalate outside of our control from NI increases, regrading for Living Wage, national pay rises for teachers and non-teaching staff, local government pension increases, cost of energy and utilities, and general inflationary pressures.”
“If a child starts my school after the first week in October, I will receive no funding for them until 22 months later.”
“SEND Funding...is made up of a number of proxy factors, but 25% of this is deprivation. Just because you may have special needs, it doesn’t mean you’re deprived and...just because you’re deprived doesn’t mean you’re special needs...The current formula makes a postcode lottery out of special needs funding.”
“In 2019-20 in Cheshire East...39 out of 124 primaries will get less than last year. 31% of primaries will lose an average of 3-4%...The very small schools, such as rural schools, suffer further loses: 8 out of 16 small schools will get less than last year, with an average loss of over 8%”.
“The whole NFF formula needs to be revised...and…in Cheshire East schools actually receive just £2,928 for every primary aged child”—
not the £3,500 that they should get. Another head said:
“Funding for SEN is now at crisis point in Cheshire East.”
I want to finish with the comments of a new head, which moved me deeply:
“As a new Head, I have been overwhelmed by the constraints of our budget...We are particularly struggling with support for pupils with additional needs...support from the SEND Team at County has been limited because they are overspent and cannot afford to meet children’s needs...Services such as Special Needs, Safeguarding and Looked After are overspent and cannot offer the support and guidance that school and families need...The lack of funding in education in Cheshire is causing great hardship...It is heartbreaking to be supporting a child who needs alternative provision and to have to explain to their parents that there is nothing more you can do...If we don’t support our more complex children, we risk pupils being hurt, property being broken, and learning disrupted...We have a number of children suffering with mental health issues, and are witnessing self-harm”—
this is at primary-school age. They continued:
“We frequently find Health and Safety issues, but are unable to correct them because we don’t have the funds...I am also concerned that talented staff will leave the profession.”
I note that the petition for a longer debate on fairer funding had been signed by 1,424 of my constituents as of this morning. That is 1.5% of them. I will of course speak again in that debate on 4 March, because I have much more to relate from my teachers, but time does not permit today.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, I think for the first time.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for the way in which they have, over the past few years, brought the issue of school funding in their area to the Department, to me personally and to the Secretary of State. If I may say so, they have had a significant influence on the way in which the national funding formula has been implemented—
Nick Gibb
I will not give way, because of time, but I was about to say that Opposition Members have also brought the issues to the Department’s attention. I pay tribute to them, too, and to other hon. Friends who are not present at the debate.
This Government are determined to create a world-class education system that allows every child to achieve their potential, regardless of who they are or where they live. As well as improving standards and supporting teachers, we are investing money in our schools and helping them to make the most out of every pound they receive. We are also delivering on our promise to make funding fairer. The introduction of the national funding formula, the biggest reform of the school funding system for a decade, means that we are now directing money where it is most needed, based on schools’ and pupils’ needs and characteristics.
I want to start by emphasising the significant progress we are already making towards creating a world-class education system, thanks in part to our reforms: the attainment gap between rich and poor is shrinking; the proportion of pupils in good or outstanding schools has increased from 66% in 2010 to 84% now; and our primary school children have achieved their highest ever score on international reading tests. We have also launched 12 opportunity areas to drive improvement in parts of the country that we know can do better.
Antoinette Sandbach
The Minister mentioned the improvement in standards. One example is the Sound and District Primary School, which improved the proportion of pupils achieving at key stage 2 from 70% in 2017 to 83% in 2018. Will the Minster deal with the suggestions about the index-linked approach and the age-weighted pupil unit funding that is the core of funding for every school, regardless of its particular characteristics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton raised?
Nick Gibb
I will come to that point. I am sure other hon. Members would like to raise that as well.
To support the improvements in standards, and because children get only one chance of a great education, the Government have prioritised school spending, even while having to make difficult decisions on public spending in other areas. We have invested an extra £1.3 billion across 2018-19 and 2019-20, as referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, over and above existing plans set out in the previous spending review, so core funding for schools and high needs will rise from almost £41 billion in 2017 to £43.5 billion in 2019-20. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that real terms per pupil funding for five to 16-year-olds in 2020 will be more than 50% higher than it was in 2000.
We can compare ourselves favourably with other countries. The UK spends as much per pupil on primary and secondary state education as any major economy in the world, apart from the United States of America. Although there is more money going into our schools than ever before, we absolutely recognise the budgeting challenges that schools face, and we acknowledge that we are asking schools to do more. That makes it all the more important that we do everything to ensure that we get the best out of every pound that we provide. One aspect of that is ensuring that that money is directed where it is most needed.
For the first time last April, funding was distributed to local authorities based on the individual needs and characteristics of every school in the country, not accidents of geography or history, as had been the case in the previous system, when schools with similar characteristics received very different levels of funding with little or no justification. Those disparities had persisted and grown for nearly a decade and left some schools and areas unable to get the resources they needed. That is why our commitment to reform the unfair, opaque and outdated schools and high needs funding systems was so important. I am very pleased to say that our introduction of the national funding formula delivers on that commitment.
Schools are already benefiting from the gains delivered by the national funding formula. Since 2017, we have given every local authority more money for every pupil in every school, while allocating the biggest increases to the schools that have been most underfunded. By 2019-20, all schools will attract an increase of at least 1% per pupil compared with their 2017-18 baselines, and the most underfunded schools will attract up to 6% more per pupil by 2019-20, compared with 2017-18. On average, schools in Cheshire East, including in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, will receive gains of 2.4% per pupil by next year, compared with 2017-18. That will mean an extra £10.4 million in total when rising pupil numbers are also factored in. On high needs, last December we announced that we will provide £250 million of additional funding across England over this financial year and the next. In Cheshire East, it means the local authority will receive an additional £1.6 million across this year and next, on top of the increases that were already promised.
We recognise, as I have said, the challenges faced by the lowest funded schools. We heard throughout the consultation, particularly from stakeholders in Cheshire East—I remember meeting headteachers that Members brought to the office—that we could do more to support schools that attract the lowest pupil funding. We listened carefully and have included minimum per pupil funding levels in the formula to guarantee that every school attracts a minimum amount of funding for every pupil, regardless of whether they have children with additional needs.
I am pleased that the council representing Cheshire East has chosen to use the transitional minimum of £3,300 for primary and £4,600 for secondary schools in its local formula in 2018-19. In 2019-20, the formula will provide for at least £4,800 per pupil in every secondary school and £3,500 for every primary. In Cheshire East, secondary schools in particular benefit from this measure with around half of secondary schools attracting extra funding as a result. We have not limited gains for schools benefiting from those minimum funding levels.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton also raised the issue of rural schools. The national funding formula includes support for small schools, especially those in rural areas. It provides a lump sum of £110,000 for every school as a contribution to the costs that do not vary with pupil numbers, and that gives schools certainty that they will attract a fixed amount each year. The sparsity factor in the formula allocates additional funding of £25 million specifically to schools that are both small and remote. This year, seven schools in my right hon. Friend’s constituency attracted a combined total of £133,000 in sparsity funding.[Official Report, 19 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 13MC.]
As for schools in Cheshire East that do not attract such funding either because they are not among the smallest schools nationally or they are not far enough apart to meet the distance threshold—something my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury raised—we have been clear that we want all schools to operate as efficiently as possible, and there is scope for rural schools in close proximity to work together to get the best value from their resources. None the less—this will please my hon. Friend—we keep the formula design under consideration and will consider feedback on specific factors when developing the formula. In particular, we appreciate that the straight-line distances used to determine eligibility for sparsity funding might not always be appropriate, given local geography, and we are considering how to refine the methodology for calculating sparsity eligibility in future. In the meantime, local authorities can submit a request to vary how distance is measured for sparsity funding allocations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton also raised sixth-form funding. We recognise the pressure that post-16 funding has been under and we have protected the base rate of funding for all 16 to 19-year-old students until 2020. Our commitment to the 16 to 19 sector has contributed to the current record high proportions of 16 to 17-year-olds who are participating in education or apprenticeships. We are also providing additional funding to support institutions to grow participation in level 3 maths. Institutions will receive an extra £600 for every additional student from next year.
I also recognise that protecting the base rate in cash terms means that funding per student has not kept pace with inflation, and we will look carefully at 16 to 19 funding in preparation for the next spending review. I hope that gives some assurance to my hon. Friends.
Fiona Bruce
I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but the issue is not only about pupils coming to the end of their time at school. Primary school heads have told me that the base figure of £3,500, which they do not receive, will simply not cover their costs. They say the base cost to run a primary school and serve their pupils is £4,060, so they make the point that the base figure is now insufficient.
Nick Gibb
I understand the representation that my hon. Friend makes. She is, as always, assiduous, as are my other hon. Friends and Opposition Members. We have to make difficult decisions. We introduced that minimum amount to tackle particular problems highlighted by headteachers from Cheshire, and we keep the issues under review.
We understand that the national funding formula represents a big change to the funding system and that schools need stability. To ensure that there is a smooth transition, we have confirmed that, for the next two years, local authorities will continue to be responsible for setting school budgets at a local level, in consultation with their schools. This flexibility will help to ensure that the transition to the formula takes place in a way that best meets the needs of local schools and pupils. Many local authorities are moving closer and closer to the national funding formula, and 112 authorities, including authorities in Cheshire, have introduced a minimum per pupil funding level factor in their local formula. I am very pleased that so many authorities across the country are showing such strong support for the national funding formula.
I thank all Members in this debating Chamber today for their contributions to this very important debate.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Human Rights in the UK
(5 years, 2 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
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered human rights in the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, I think for the first time. I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce today’s debate.
Over the last few years, particularly since we began our Brexit journey, we have discussed human rights in the United Kingdom and the potential consequences for them were this country to leave the European Union. A number of colleagues, most notably my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), have sought assurances from Ministers that human rights protection in the United Kingdom would not be in any way diminished as a result of that process. By and large, those assurances have been given.
Why, therefore, is it appropriate to discuss this matter again? There are three reasons. First, we have moved on in the Brexit process. We now have a draft political declaration that seeks to define the relationship this country would wish to have with the other 27 members after it leaves the European Union—if, indeed, it does. A number of us noticed a slight change of language in that declaration regarding human rights. No longer is there a clear-cut commitment to embody in domestic legislation the European convention on human rights; instead, there is talk of respect for the framework that the ECHR provides. The other 27 signatories to the political declaration are quite clear in their commitment to the ECHR. That suggests the possibility of some divergence between the United Kingdom and EU member states regarding implementation of the convention.
Secondly, the Government are led by someone who could hardly be described as absolute in her commitment to the current human rights legislative framework in this country. When the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, she sought to undermine the Human Rights Act 1998 by suggesting that it was in some way soft on terrorists. It is also worth noting that when she stood to be leader of the Conservative party, she ruled out repealing the HRA, not as a matter of principle, but because there was, in her words, no majority in Parliament for doing so. One wonders what her position might be were the majority in Parliament to change.
Thirdly, the Conservative party was elected on a manifesto that pledged that the HRA would not be repealed
“while the process of Brexit is underway”.
Who am I to guess whether the Brexit process is nearing the endgame or not? It certainly looks likely that, in 2019, it will get to the final stages, and we may or may not leave the European Union. The question therefore arises: what would the governing party’s policy be on repeal of the HRA once the Brexit process has been completed or at least got to the position of being implemented? For all those reasons, the central purpose of today’s debate is to seek an assurance from the Minister that there will be no attempt to repeal, undermine, weaken or amend the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
I often feel that our discussions on human rights can become somewhat abstract and go over the heads of the ordinary man or woman in the street. It is important that we state clearly why human rights are so central to everything we believe in. In essence, human rights are an expression of what we mean by civilisation. They define how individuals should act towards one another. They confer respect and dignity on the individual. Crucially, as well as setting standards for the behaviour that we expect from others, they set obligations on how we ought to behave towards others. I would argue that the existence of human rights is central to our wellbeing as a healthy and dynamic society.
It has been rightly suggested that few people ever think about their human rights; they certainly do not feel the need to go to court to have them upheld. I doubt if more than a tiny percentage of the population even know of someone who has gone to court on a human rights matter. That in itself suggests how powerful and useful the legislative framework is. The central point of human rights legislation is not to allow people to seek redress if their rights are infringed, but to protect people in the first place from others doing bad things to them. The fact that there is so little court activity in this field vindicates the view that the system is working.
Of course, there are cases where the system does not work and people feel the need to have their rights upheld. It is interesting to refer to a few of those, so that we, and the public, can understand how central these matters are. Celia Peachey did not think that the Human Rights Act related to her at all. Her mother was killed at the hands of a violent partner. She tried for years to get the police to do something about it, but could not persuade them to intervene. After her mother died, she was able to use the Human Rights Act to secure an inquest, which returned a verdict of unlawful killing and criticised the police for refusing to take action despite her representations.
The Driscolls were an elderly couple who depended on each other for care and support to go about their daily lives. When Mr Driscoll was rehoused in a residential care home, his wife was not allowed to live with him. They used the article in the Human Rights Act on the right to a family life to argue that they should be rehoused together, and they won and were rehoused as a couple. That was of benefit not only to them; they set a precedent, and in such cases it is now normal to consider rehousing elderly couples together.
Members will know of the case of Gary McKinnon, a young man with Asperger’s who allegedly hacked into a National Aeronautics and Space Administration computer database and who was wanted by the United States of America. They tried to have him extradited, which would have led to 60 years’ imprisonment had he been found guilty. He tried to resist that extradition. To her credit, the then Home Secretary said in 2012 that she would not allow his extradition, because, under the Human Rights Act, his rights would be breached were he extradited to stand trial in the US.
There is also the celebrated case of the black cab rapist, John Worboys. Two of his early victims, in 2003 and 2007, went to the police to complain about what had happened to them, and their complaints were not investigated at the time. After the case came to prominence, they used the Human Rights Act to get an inquiry into how the police had dealt with their complaints. It found that they had not done so correctly. The police were reprimanded, and the victims received compensation as a result of that use of the Human Rights Act.
Many people will know of the continuing campaign of the families of those who died in the Hillsborough disaster to seek justice for their loved ones. They have repeatedly used the Human Rights Act over the last 20 years to move their cases forward.
The final example I will give is that of people trying to get redress against public authorities—particularly health authorities, such as the Mid Staffordshire NHS hospital trust. I do not want to go into detail about the sad state of affairs in that institution; suffice it to say that 119 families have used the Human Rights Act to seek redress for the treatment they received from that hospital. Those are all important uses of the Act. Often, they quite literally make the difference between life and death, and are central to the quality of life of our citizens.
Let me turn to the implications of Brexit for the protections in the Human Rights Act. I have already discussed the wording of the political declaration with respect to the European convention on human rights, but in a sense I have to wonder why it is even an issue. The ECHR is the creature not of the European Union, but of the Council of Europe—an organisation to which this country subscribes and that involves 47 European countries, 40% of which are not members of the European Union—so one wonders why this is even being talked about in the context of Brexit.
It has been suggested that a commitment to the ECHR, if taken seriously, is in some ways a hindrance to the process of government and that it prevents the Government from acting freely. Some people on the extreme wings of the Brexit movement would suggest that it means foreign interference with the ability of an independent United Kingdom to do whatever it wants. Well, it is a good hindrance, because it obliges us to conform to international norms of civilisation to which most people throughout the world subscribe.
In terms of complaints under the ECHR and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the United Kingdom actually has a very good record: it is right down at the bottom of the list of countries having cases lodged against them. Our association with the Court and with the processes upholding the convention should not be seen as some sort of hindrance; it is a vindication of the fact that this country is actually quite good at upholding human rights when it comes to how things are governed.
There is a concern that one reason behind the debate on revisiting human rights legislation may be a desire to free up the United Kingdom for international trading arrangements post Brexit—the International Trade Secretary is not doing that well at signing us up to them, but I am sure more will come on the agenda in time. It is important that we say at the outset that we are not prepared to accept any trade-off in human rights standards from third-party countries as part of securing trade agreements. Surely we need to be seen as a country that not only upholds its own human rights standards, but uses its power and authority to ensure that such standards are upheld internationally. I therefore ask the Minister, first, to confirm that there is no intention to diminish current protections, and, secondly, to explore how in a post-Brexit scenario—if indeed that comes about—human rights will be protected not just in this country but around the world.
One problem is that we are talking about something that, to some extent, has already happened. Last summer, in debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government were keen to ensure that the EU charter of fundamental rights would not be included in British legislation, despite opposition from my party and many others. Their case was that including the charter would be unnecessary duplication, since all the individual rights in it were replicated elsewhere. That was not quite true—some rights in the charter are not in the ECHR—but, in any case, it missed the main point: the charter’s purpose was not just to define people’s rights, but to create obligations on EU member states regarding how those rights would be upheld and, in particular, to assert their primacy over other legislation.
Jason Coppel QC’s advice to the Equality and Human Rights Commission cites a 2017 case of cleaners in the Sudanese embassy who had tried to go to court to uphold their employment rights but had been told that, under the State Immunity Act 1978, foreign embassies were exempt from employment claims. They used the charter to go to court and to argue and win their case that their employment rights and human rights at work are more important that the 1978 Act, which should be set aside to ensure their rights. The tragedy is that if we exit the European Union at 11 pm on 29 March, the charter will be gone, so those cleaners would not be able to bring such a case. That is a diminution of people’s rights.
It is important not to be complacent about this, so we need to look at ways of strengthening and developing the application of human rights in our country. To that end, I want to say something about the situation in Scotland, because developments there can provide some leadership to the United Kingdom and the other nations in it. The Human Rights Act is a reserved matter, but the European convention on human rights, which the Act enshrines, is fundamental to the devolution settlement in Scotland and Wales and to the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. Scottish Ministers are required to comply with the ECHR in everything they do. For that reason—and for the simple reason that upholding most people’s human rights has an awful lot to do with the day-to-day processes of government—the Scottish Government are keen to look at how human rights can be developed and incorporated into Scots law.
Just before Christmas, the First Minister’s advisory group on human rights leadership, chaired by Professor Alan Miller, published a very good report, which I commend to colleagues. It sets an agenda for taking things forward over the next five years and sets out three central principles in the context of Brexit. The first, which I have already mentioned, is that there should be no regression in human rights protections as a result of Brexit. The second, which we do not often talk about, is that we need to keep pace with any improvements in human rights protections in the European Union. That is a matter of having policies to ensure that this country does not lag behind the EU27, or indeed the Council of Europe 46. The third is how to make it real—how to integrate human rights protections into the very processes of government.
The report splits human rights into categories, of which the most familiar is civil and political rights such as the right to life, the right to vote or the right to free expression. Those rights are central to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, but there is a whole other dimension of human rights that is essential to defining the nature of our society: social and economic rights, such as the right to health, the right to shelter or the right to work. The report is instructive in how it takes forward the debate; rather than describing those rights as abstract principles or objectives to attain, it examines how to shape Government policy towards their delivery.
I am happy to debate the point, because colleagues from the libertarian right may be able to put an alternative point of view, but, to my mind, delivering social and economic rights has to address the question of regulating resources in society. Essentially, such rights are about a fair allocation and sharing of resources between people. That does not mean that it is the Government’s responsibility to provide everybody with the keys to a three-bedroom house, but it does mean that the Government ought to be responsible for ensuring that there is a housing public policy framework with the objective that everyone should be adequately housed. In cases where regulation or the market fail to achieve that objective, the Government should also be responsible for ensuring safety-net provision of basic shelter. To test whether Government policy is delivering those rights, we need to ensure that the notion of human rights is integrated into Government at all levels.
There is much that can be learned from the debate in Scotland, so perhaps the Minister could comment on it, and on whether such a debate could happen in the United Kingdom as a whole. Human rights cannot be seen as an add-on or afterthought to Government policy; they need to be central to it at all levels. In future debates on the subject, rather than having a reply from a Justice Minister, perhaps it would be more fitting to have one from a Cabinet Office Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or even the Prime Minister, because human rights need to be driven into every aspect of Government policy. They should not be seen as the concern only of lawyers or legal departments; they should be central to how we do the business of Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Order. I am conscious that several Members wish to speak. I intend to move to the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.28 pm, so I advise Members that they will have to be relatively concise if everyone is to speak. I call John Howell.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who is a fellow member of the Council of Europe. I understand and agree with a lot of what he said.
The European convention on human rights has been around since the early 1950s, and it is worth remembering that it was 1965 when we agreed to abide by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the UK. We have had almost 60 years of a relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and its decisions.
I start by making the point that the convention is not the same as the Human Rights Act, and the European Union is not the same as the Council of Europe. The two are very different and we should take them as such. I have a lot of time for the convention, and I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said about it. I was particularly irritated during the referendum campaign that a lot of people got the ECHR confused with the European Court of Justice. The two are completely separate. One is owned by the European Union and the other by the Council of Europe.
I would go on to say that the single biggest contribution to peace in Europe since the end of the second world war has come from the European convention on human rights, together with the work that NATO has done. We should state that, and we should be proud of it, because we have been very much involved in it from the beginning. As the hon. Gentleman and I know only too well, the European Court of Human Rights comes with a democratic mandate. I imagine the hon. Gentleman spends a lot of time, as I do, voting for the judges who are nominated to sit on the European Court of Human Rights. That gives democratic control and is also a means of reflecting, to some extent, the mixture of politics, competence and a whole number of other matters that give the European Court of Human Rights its character.
I am not as enamoured of the EU’s involvement with human rights, which I think has created a very mixed picture. If I am not using the term wrongly, I think that the European Union has tried to steal the mandate of the Council of Europe, which applies to almost twice the number of countries as the EU does—that is where a large part of its strength lies. The relationship between the EU and the European Court of Human Rights is something that we are still debating at the Council of Europe.
UK involvement with the European Court of Human Rights has been a huge success story. It has been a very good illustration of how human rights overall are doing quite well in this country. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need to extend those human rights to matters such as housing. That is a route to socialist involvement in the running of this country that I do not agree with, and would steer clear of.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are countries across the world, such as South Africa with its new constitution and some Nordic countries, that have a right to adequate housing in their constitutions? Does he consider those to be socialist countries?
John Howell
When the EU decided to bring out its own human rights framework, it thought very carefully about what should be included, and it differs from the European Court of Human Rights on only a few exceptions.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The European convention on human rights was opened for signature in November 1950 in Rome, and the Government in this country was a Labour Government from 1945 to 1951. Will the hon. Gentleman praise the socialist Government under which the ECHR was originally conceived?
John Howell
The hon. Gentleman plays politics with human rights, which is unworthy of him and of this Chamber.
To return to the issue I was discussing—the success of the British Government with the European Court of Human Rights—about 90% of applications that come before the European Court of Human Rights are deemed unacceptable and are not taken forward. Of those that are taken forward, since 1975, the Court has found no violation in a quarter. Our track record is particularly successful.
I want to bring up two cases that illustrate the extremes. The first is that of the Gurkhas. Members may remember that a few years ago we moved their headquarters back to the UK and their pensions on to the same basis as UK soldiers. They took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, which decided that there had been no real discrimination against them, and found for the British Government.
In a slightly different case on the UK’s mass surveillance regime, which it uses as part of security operations, the Court found that the UK had violated the convention and it asked for some changes. That brings us on to the very tricky issue of the role of human rights versus legislation regarding dealing with terrorism. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East that this should be looked at in the context of what makes a better world to live in—I am not one of those who believes that tearing up the European convention on human rights is the best way to protect us against terrorism—but, having said that, and as the hon. Gentleman will know, at the last Council of Europe meeting, when the issue came up of whether we deprive those who have gone to fight with ISIS of their passports, I enthusiastically supported that motion. We should not have them back. The role of human rights in this plays out at different levels and in different ways.
In terms of how the ECHR works, people should understand that they have to exhaust all domestic remedies first, before they have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. They cannot go straight to the European Court of Human Rights. There has to be an alleged violation of the convention, and significant disadvantage from that.
The response I would like to hear from the Minister is along the lines of what has already been said—indeed, it was this Minister who said:
“The UK will remain a party to the ECHR after it has left the European Union. The decision to leave the European Union does not change our strong commitment to recognising and respecting human rights.”
I am not sure whether he remembers making that statement, but it was in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
I agree with the Minister wholeheartedly: human rights are too important to be used as a political football in this game of Brexit or, indeed, in anything else. We have a long and successful track record of using our involvement with the European Court of Human Rights and our long relationship with the Council of Europe, which oversees the Court, and of protecting the interests of British citizens.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful that we have you in the Chair, Mr Gapes, and it is a pleasure to serve under you. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing the debate. I certainly have concerns about the loss of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, including article 25, on the rights of older people. I have been campaigning for a commission for the rights of older people; they are very much voiceless in our institutions, and we need serious reparation.
Today, I will take a different perspective. People will be glad to know that I am going to talk not about Brexit but about my city of York, which became the UK’s first human rights city on 24 April 2017. Currently, there are 41 human rights cities across the world, including nine in Europe, which are networked together. That is something we are incredibly proud of, and it builds on a strong legacy. In setting out what a human rights city is, I hope hon. Members will be encouraged to take that message back to their own cities to develop a case like the one Swansea is currently developing.
York is a human rights city built on a legacy. We became a city of sanctuary in 2016. York Travellers Trust has done incredible work representing Travellers and Gypsies in our city. The York LGBT Forum has welcomed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender asylum seekers and refugees, bringing them together in a safe space. The University of York has a global reputation, and its Centre for Applied Human Rights is famous for its protective fellowship scheme, which brings human rights defenders from across the world to the university not only to have some thinking space to make sure their human rights activity is sustainable globally, but to have some intellectual rigour in looking at best practice in terms of human rights defenders across the globe.
I ask the Minister to ensure that we do not face real challenges in getting visas for these individuals when they come to the UK, so that they can have that space. We are humbled to hear of the work they are doing, whether they are journalists, human rights defenders or people working in court systems. They come to the UK not only to have some respite, but to advance their human rights practice, yet visas are blocked time and again because these people do not have the resources, although they have people here who are willing to sponsor them. It seems a shame that doors are shut when we should be extolling the incredible work these people do.
As a human rights city, York has signed up to a charter to work on the domestic human rights agenda. I disagree with the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on the importance of these issues, because human rights must also apply at home in the UK. The five areas that York has chosen—they are not circumscribed—are equality and non-discrimination, education, decent standards of living, housing, and health and social care. In becoming a human rights city, York embraces a vision of a vibrant, diverse, fair and safe community built on the foundation of universal human rights. It is a vision that is shared by all citizens and institutions in our city, including the council, the police, the voluntary sector and the faith communities. It puts fundamental rights at the heart of policies that are passed by these authorities, and builds on hopes and dreams.
People who know the history of York will know that this follows a strong legacy. On housing, human rights is such an important issue to our city, where the Rowntree family built our country’s first garden village in New Earswick. That stimulated the Housing Act 1919, which was the foundation of social housing in our country, and the model was then taken forward into Tang Hall, further into the city.
As a city, we have had pioneering mental health services—first at Bootham Park Hospital, which was established in 1777. When a patient tragically died there, the Quaker movement said, “We can do better” and set up a retreat. To this day, there has been competition to advance the human rights of people with mental health challenges in our city.
We then had Seebohm Rowntree, and many people will know that he wrote three incredibly powerful reports on the issue of poverty—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has followed that through until today. Even in the 1899 report “Poverty, A Study of Town Life”, the authors talked to over 46,500 residents of York to look at the serious poverty in our city. What an incredible study that was, taking the stories as well as the statistics to try to advance our city.
Then we had Joseph Rowntree himself—yes, he of chocolate fame—who outlined what good-practice work should look like in our city. He provided not only jobs with decent pay, but pensions, healthcare, education, housing, a park, theatres, access to the arts, a swimming pool and decent conditions. He and his family understood the real importance of that holistic agenda for advancing individual rights, and he sewed that legacy into our city. That is why we are proud to be the UK’s first human rights city.
However, we are on a journey, and it is fair to say that there is a lot that we need to achieve. As we map our way forward, we are looking at statistics and stories to tackle challenges where, quite frankly, our city needs to improve. Over the last year, we have seen wages fall in York by £65, causing greater economic inequality when we are already the most inequitable city outside London. By using the human rights framework to look at economic disadvantage, we will be advancing opportunities for people in our city. We have a gender pay gap of £117, which has to be addressed—it is above the national average. We have also looked at the issue of food bank use, which is up 25% in the last year—over 4,000 residents needed to use a food bank. How can that be ignored when we look at a human rights framework? These are fundamental issues facing our society today.
There is an eight-year gap in life expectancy in York. In the wards of Clifton, Westfield and Tang Hall, men die eight years earlier than their counterparts elsewhere—they are disadvantaged both economically and in terms of health.
On education, using the human rights framework we have established, we have already seen the number of NEETs—people who are not in education, employment or training—fall. That is a really positive outcome, which is due to our tracking through the causation and then introducing the restorative means to get more people into work. However, York has received the worst school funding in the country from the Government. In areas where we have the lowest attainment—we have the biggest attainment gap in the country—we are not building a legacy for the future. I urge the Government to look at the data and make the link between funding and attainment, which our human rights framework clearly does.
Cuts to social care have had a real impact. To go back to the fundamental rights I mentioned, we know that contact with social care services has fallen in our city. On the important issue of housing, although we are a low-wage economy, we have people with high skills and therefore under-employment. That makes it harder to access housing, because we have a very high cost of living. Purchasing a property in York requires 10 times the average annual income, and it is incredibly expensive to rent. We have poor access to housing, and greater inequality is therefore being created between the haves and have-nots in our city. We therefore use the human rights framework to advance opportunity and map a way forward for people in our city.
Since 2017, we have established a human rights and equalities board and developed community voices, ensuring that those who never engage in our democracy, and whose voices are silent, are at last being heard. We reach out particularly to the homeless, disabled people, women and young people. We also support others who hope to develop the framework to advance rights in their own city. York has been built on its history and social traditions, and we want its legacy to move forward. The Labour party in the city has a vision of building a fair city for the future and re-enacting and repeating the work that Seebohm Rowntree did.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Order. Three people wish to speak. If Members can keep their remarks to about five minutes, including interventions, that might allow Front-Bench speakers time. I intend to call the first Front-Bench speaker at 3.28 pm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Gapes. I am a little perturbed that my time has been cut, but that is by the way. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for securing this debate. Although we champion human rights in this country, there are certainly cases that show we are not where we should be. Next year is the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower’s journey. In September 1620, a group of 102 people and 30 crew members sailed across the Atlantic to seek opportunity and to escape religious persecution in the UK. Some 400 years later, we still have some problems.
There are also cases that show us that one person’s human rights should not be laid on the altar of someone else’s perceived rights. An example was the case of Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland, when the question was raised as to whether we still have the right to refuse to serve based on a message that directly contradicts a sincerely and dearly held faith. After much legal wrangling, the case upheld the right to refuse a message, but not a customer. The idea that you cannot be forced to advocate something that you do not believe in is fundamental, and the decision was very important. The case was taken to the UK Supreme Court and in a unanimous decision five of the UK’s most senior judges upheld Ashers’ appeal against claims of discrimination. They agreed:
“The objection was to being required to promote the message on the cake. The less favourable treatment was afforded to the message not to the man...Nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe.”
That is what the court said, and it is very important to have that decision when it comes to human rights in the United Kingdom.
Although the case was ostensibly about a message on a cake, a section of Christian people were fearful that it was also about an impact on their right to hold their belief and to live their belief out. We are so good at protecting the rights of everyone to live their beliefs inasmuch as they are not harmful or destructive, and yet increasingly we have a section of the UK beginning to fear what can be said or not said when it comes to their Christian beliefs.
A 78-year-old preacher in Northern Ireland was questioned and tried for preaching from his pulpit regarding a biblical story and hell and the fact that if someone does not have faith in Jesus Christ they cannot go to heaven. He was found not guilty. That is another example of human rights. We have registrars who have lost their jobs as they cannot oversee the marriage ceremony of same-sex couples, which is against their held beliefs. Other people are happy to do it, and yet registrars have lost their employment. It is little wonder that Christians question their human rights when all seem to say, “Believe anything you want, tolerate everything possible, except for something based on the word of God and personal and heartfelt beliefs.” The court cases have proven that that is not the case. We must question how such cases get to court. There is a real fear within Christian circles at this time.
I have heard more than one Christian preacher warn his congregation that a time is coming when all will be persecuted for their faith, and many people believe that will happen in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want a message sent today, very clearly and specifically, that that will not happen in this country while we are still a democracy—that we will allow people to hold on to their belief and live by it as long as there is no harm to others around them. This nation was founded on biblical principles from the time of Alfred the Great, and it is time that we reminded people that, whether we personally believe or not, Christians will not be persecuted for living their faith, in the same way as we do not allow the persecution of other religions. It goes without saying, and yet a growing section of our community need to hear it said in this debate today as we talk about human rights. We also must speak up for those who have been persecuted because of their religious and heartfelt views. It is very important that these matters are put on the record.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for leading this debate.
I want to say a few words about the European convention on human rights, which I very much support. It is important to emphasise that the values that we see in the European convention are British values. Let us look, for example, at some of the rights contained within it: the right to life, which sounds fairly British to me; the right to avoid torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, article 3—we could probably sign up to that; the right not to be subject to slavery, article 4; the right to liberty and security, article 5; and the right to a fair trial and so on. All too often this debate has been tainted by a misunderstanding of what the actual rights are, as though they are a foreign import that do not reflect some of the cultural norms in our country, but nothing could be further from the truth. That is emphasised by the fact that, certainly in my experience in court, and I dare say in the experience of plenty of the other distinguished practitioners in this room today, it is overwhelmingly the case that any submission that is supported by, for the sake of argument, article 6 is often buttressed by domestic legislation as well.
In the criminal courts, if someone seeks to exclude evidence that is relied upon by the prosecution on the grounds that it would deny their client the right to a fair trial, it might be that, in tandem with invoking article 6, they will rely on section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Although the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was absolutely right to highlight individual cases where rights had been asserted in order to achieve a remedy, in the overwhelming majority of cases in our country the domestic legislation does perfectly well and may be supported to some extent. As I say, it is rare that the right itself would found the claim or application for a remedy.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in his assessment of the criminal law. The one area where the Human Rights Act, in the sense of the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law, has made a big difference is in family law, particularly in rights to see children.
Alex Chalk
That is right, and there are areas where there has been a greater role for it. However, I want to slay the myth that people are routinely invoking Human Rights Act points to seek remedies that are not otherwise available in the legislation. There are examples of that, but they are by no means the norm. The convention is important because it provides an important safety net at a time particularly of national stress and crisis. We know that in the case of a terrorist atrocity, the cry immediately goes up that the state must act ever more robustly, often impinging upon individual liberties. Sometimes that is the right judgment to make, but equally it is critically important that any measures that the state proposes are viewed through the prism of what we see as keenly won liberties. It is not just a British phenomenon.
If one thinks of the United States in the second world war, one of the episodes of which it has now the most shame was the internment of Japanese Americans at a time of national stress. But our country is not immune to it. In the aftermath of September 11, there was legislation in the UK that people will remember: part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which was used by the then Government to effectively hold people without charge. That ultimately was challenged in the European Court of Human Rights and the Court ruled that that was unlawful because it breached article 5. Again, it seems that that provides a useful safety net.
Joanna Cherry
In my lifetime, members of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland were interned without trial, with quite some impact on family life. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is something that the ECHR has made a big difference to in the United Kingdom? As a result of our membership and its applicability through the Human Rights Act, it now would not be possible to intern without trial in the UK.
Alex Chalk
It is an important point and we must recognise that because—as is necessary in a democracy—we listen to our constituents and reflect their concerns, this House will always have a tendency to react in a very public way to what is perceived as a public need; but it is not wrong that there should be a check to that and a requirement for us sometimes to pause for thought.
In so far as we give great power to the courts—and to the European Court of Human Rights, through the convention—it is also right that they should exercise necessary discretion, and I respectfully suggest that there have been examples of their straying beyond their natural area of competence. The most obvious example is Hirst, when article 3, which of course prohibits torture and “inhuman or degrading treatment”, was relied on to rule that the British Government were in error in saying that prisoners could not vote. A number of people might think that that had gone too far, and that there had not been appropriate respect for the principles of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation. I will not go into that now, but there is certainly a case for saying that the Court should tread carefully—and I invite it to do so. I say that because what the Court does, and the rulings that it provides, overwhelmingly contribute to human rights in this country and to the quality of our public discourse and democracy. It would be a crying shame if unfortunate judicial activism were to put that at risk.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for bringing this important issue to the House.
I am deeply concerned by the huge hole that will be left in human rights protection after Brexit, especially in the event of a no-deal Brexit. However, even while the UK remains a member of the European Union, human rights have been considerably worn down as a result of austerity policies.
Kate Osamor
No, but only because there is not a lot of time.
Only last year, the UK, according to Professor Alston, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, was found in breach of four UN human rights agreements: those relating to women, children, disabled people and economic and social rights. The critiquing report drew on work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to highlight predictions that child poverty could rise by 7% by 2022, possibly up to a rate of 40%. Professor Alston declared that such actual and projected levels of child poverty were
“not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster”.
Such reports agree with the experience of my constituents. Enfield Council has already made £178 million-worth of savings since 2010 because of funding cuts from central Government. However, further cuts mean that the council currently has to find another £18 million to draw out of essential services by 2020. That amount of £18 million is more than Enfield’s current net spend on housing services, leisure, culture, libraries, parks and open spaces combined. The impact of cuts on young people is tragic. Youth services have been decimated and young people are abandoned, as essential staff have had to be shed, and what is simply a skeleton service is provided. Austerity in education in Edmonton has created an £8.5 million annual funding shortfall. Every school in my constituency has had funding cuts since 2015. That means, in an already struggling community, that the education of every single pupil in Edmonton has been undermined.
All that and much more has been done while the UK still has the protection of the EU charter of fundamental rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 is woefully insufficient on its own, and I dread what could be done to our communities without the limited protection that the EU charter provides. Does the Minister recognise the limitations of the Human Rights Act without the protections of the EU charter of fundamental rights, and can he explain how his party’s Government are preserving those rights before the UK leaves the EU?
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing the debate. We have had diverse contributions, from the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor). I was particularly interested in the concept of the human rights city, which I was not aware of. I shall look at that as something that Edinburgh might think about. I was also pleased that the hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned the report and findings of the UN rapporteur on poverty. We should bear that in mind carefully as we proceed to look at how we run our economy and society.
The debate is timely, because Parliament is convulsed in a state of indecision at the moment about whether to go for the Prime Minister’s deal, no deal or no Brexit. Everyone is talking about the backstop. It is important in that context not to lose sight of the clear risk posed by Brexit of regression in terms of human rights, across the United Kingdom. It is also important to remember the threat that it poses to human rights in Northern Ireland. At least one speaker today has pointed out how integral the recognition of human rights is to the Good Friday agreement. For anyone interested in that, I highly recommend the briefing paper “The Good Friday Agreement, Brexit, and Rights” by Professor Christopher McCrudden, who is the professor of human rights and equality law at Queen’s University Belfast. The paper was published by the British Academy and the Royal Irish Academy, and makes interesting reading.
I believe that human rights are in a precarious position in the UK at the moment, because despite a clear commitment from the Prime Minister that Brexit would not result in a diminution of rights protections, the UK Government have not to date lived up to that commitment either in the context of Brexit or more widely, as we can see from the UN rapporteur’s report and the huge concern caused by the Windrush scandal and other aspects of the hostile environment policy. Many of us feel that the Government have refused to engage with people’s concerns about the impact of Brexit on human rights. It is concerning that while the Human Rights Act is said to be safe for the duration of the Brexit process, recent events have made it clear that the current UK Government have not lost sight of a long-standing desire on the part of some in the Conservative and Unionist party to repeal and replace the Act.
In the meantime, we know for certain that if Brexit happens we shall lose the charter of fundamental rights. That charter protected a wide-ranging list of fundamental rights and principles, covering certain social and citizens’ rights, and going considerably further than the ECHR. The UK Government have tried to argue that the charter did not add anything to the corpus of UK law, but that is demonstrably false, even going by the UK Government’s own right-by-right analysis from 2017. That highlights how limited UK domestic protections are in certain key areas. That is not just my view; it was echoed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member.
The Scottish Parliament tried to preserve the benefit of the charter of fundamental rights on or after exit day, in so far as it applied to retained EU law in Scotland. It did that in a Scottish Parliament Bill called the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. Most regrettably, British Law Officers objected to the Bill and held it up until the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was passed. That retrospectively changed the powers of the Scottish Parliament so that the continuity Bill, in so far as it attempted to preserve the charter in Scotland, was ultra vires. That was a retrograde step. To anyone who says that Brexit has not been used as a power grab on the Scottish Parliament I point out that the UK Supreme Court has clearly said otherwise.
The Brexit process threatens human rights protections across the UK, not just by repealing the charter but because of the wide range of delegated powers afforded to the Executive in the Brexit process. As the withdrawal Act stands, it would allow the amendment of important domestic rights legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Data Protection Act 2018 with little or no parliamentary oversight. That is so because, despite the efforts of many of us to amend it, the Act contains no clear prohibition on the use of delegated powers to erode rights protections.
The repeal of the charter, the risks of delegated legislation, and Government obfuscation on these issues—that is also a result of Brexit—all threaten human rights in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members should not just take my word for that, because the Joint Committee on Human Rights criticised the Government over their report on human rights and the implications of Brexit, and stated back in 2016 that it was “regrettable” that the Government had not set out “any clear vision” for how they expected Brexit to impact on the UK’s human rights framework.
In the same report, the Committee found that the Government seemed “unacceptably reluctant” to discuss human rights after Brexit. The then Minister responsible for human rights, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), was either
“unwilling or unable to tell us what the Government saw as the most significant human rights issues that would arise when the UK exits the EU.”
Such reluctance to commit is of particular concern when we consider future trade deals with third countries because many of us fear, as the JCHR hinted, that an unwillingness to discuss such issues in detail is suggestive of a Government who wish to prioritise trade deals over human rights. That is important not only because of the message that it sends out to the UK, but because of the message that is sent out across the world if the United Kingdom does not prioritise human rights.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East said, concern has recently raised its head again about the Government’s long-term intentions regarding the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is difficult to remember what we all talked about in those dim and distant days before Brexit, but in 2015 and 2016 the current Prime Minister’s avowed desire to get rid of the Human Rights Act was a huge issue, and the big question mark that she raised over whether Britain would continue to observe the ECHR involved us all in a lot of debate. It seems that that issue has merely been put on the back burner, which is concerning.
As my hon. Friend said, in Scotland under devolution two pillars guarantee human rights—membership of the European Union and membership of the ECHR. Scotland now faces being taken out of the European Union against the will of the majority of Scots, and there is a big question mark over the depth of this Government’s commitment to the ECHR. The majority of Scottish voters did not seek or support those threats to human rights, and it is good to know that the Scottish Government are showing the way forward. Scotland’s national action plan for human rights has existed for a number of years, and just before Christmas the advisory group on human rights leadership to the Scottish Government published a report that suggested a new human rights framework for Scotland in the future. That advisory group was asked by the Scottish Government not only to make recommendations about civil and political rights, but to consider social, cultural and environmental rights, as well as if and how to incorporate rights found in United Nations treaties into Scots law and governance.
As my hon. Friend said, in recommending the next steps on Scotland’s human rights journey, the report of the advisory group set out three guiding principles—first, that Scotland should not regress from the rights currently guaranteed by membership of the European Union; secondly, that Scotland should keep pace with future rights developments within the European Union; and thirdly, that Scotland should continue to demonstrate leadership in human rights.
Will the Minister consider each of those principles and say whether the UK Government will sign up to them for the whole of the UK? Will the Government agree that the whole UK should not regress from the rights currently guaranteed by membership of the European Union? Will they agree that the whole UK should keep pace with future rights developments in the European Union, and that the UK should continue to demonstrate leadership in human rights? That is the sort of clarity that the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others have been calling for. I would like to hear such clarity from the Minister today, and if the UK Government cannot sign up to those principles, will the Minister tell us why not?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to what has been, on the whole, a very fine debate on human rights. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing it, and on his speech. He powerfully highlighted why this debate is so timely, given the worry that there will be a roll-back of rights, and that the EU27 will move ahead and enhance rights while we in this country fall behind. He also spoke well about the Prime Minister’s ambiguity on this matter, to say the least—I will return to that in a moment—and he picked out some strong examples of practical cases where the Human Rights Act and the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law has made a difference to those seeking justice in this country over the past two decades.
It was great to hear about the human rights city initiative in York, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and all those involved in that. We must spread information about the human rights and equalities board, and all the other work going on around the country. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), and the report of the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights should wake us up to the endemic problems of poverty in this country. She spoke about human rights agreements being breached, and that involves the economic and social rights of women, children, and disabled people. That is a stark reminder that although rights are critical, they are paper rights if people do not have the means to enforce them. It says everything we need to know about economic policy over the past nine years when an outgoing Lord Chief Justice can say that our justice system is “unaffordable to most”, and that should be a matter of great alarm.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about his experience on the Council of Europe, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about religious persecution, about which we should all be vigilant. I did not agree with all the arguments made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)—he is no longer in his place—but I certainly agreed with his support for the European convention on human rights.
We must return to first principles when discussing the European convention on human rights, which grew after world war two out of the desire and noble objective to ensure that what had happened could not happen again. As I said to the hon. Member for Henley, the convention was part of many different initiatives by the post-war Government to put that “never again” spirit into practice. I am always even-handed when dealing with the history of this initiative, so let us consider who supervised the drafting of the original ECHR. One of the people who took part in that, David Maxwell Fyfe, was a Tory MP and lawyer, and I wonder what on earth he would make of some of the modern-day Conservative party’s ambiguity towards that initiative.
What does the ECHR actually protect? I think the hon. Member for Cheltenham touched on that. It protects respect for life and is against torture and servitude. It protects liberty and security, and the right to a fair trial and not to have legislation applied retroactively. It protects the right to privacy, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of expression and association. It protects the right to get married if one wishes to, and provides effective remedies and protection against discrimination. Who could disagree with any of that? My challenge to those who say that we should have a British Bill of Rights is to ask which of those rights they would take out and not include in that Bill. I remember asking Ministers that question when I first came to Parliament in 2015, but answer came there none.
John Howell
As I said, I am a great champion of the convention, and although it was written immediately after the second world war, it contains nothing that does not apply to today.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am happy to find some agreement with the hon. Gentleman because, yes, all those things still apply today. That is precisely my point—why would anyone want to change any of those time-honoured principles? Of course we can debate how some of them are applied and so on, but those principles are as important and relevant in 2019 as they were in late 1950 when the convention was opened for signature.
The Human Rights Act 1998 is also seminal—it is important to understand precisely what the situation was before its passage. The hon. Member for Henley said that our courts started following the judgments in 1965, but of course the problem was that between the early 1950s and October 2000, when the 1998 Act came into force, if one wished to enforce any of those rights, one had to go to Strasbourg in the first place. The big change that came about in 2000 was the ability to go to our local courts to enforce those rights, which meant that it was cheaper, easier and more efficient to enforce the rights that our citizens had held for so long. That was a seminal change.
I parted company with the hon. Member for Cheltenham because, although in one sense he is right to say that those rights buttressed existing UK common law rights, there are numerous examples—the hon. Member for Edinburgh East referred to some of them, and I also point out the example of family law to the hon. Member for Henley—where the incorporation of the 1998 Act into UK law has made a significant difference.
The Labour party is very committed and passionate about the ECHR and the UK’s signatory status, and about its incorporation into our domestic law. However, there is real concern about the governing party’s position, particularly that of the Prime Minister, on the ECHR. In 2011, the Prime Minister—when she was Home Secretary—said:
“I’d personally like to see the Human Rights Act go because I think we have had some problems with it.”
Her first view appeared to be that she wanted it gone.
In April 2016, she said:
“So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave, but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court ”.
That is the Conservative party’s position in its 2017 manifesto, which states:
“We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes. We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next parliament.”
In his response, the Minister has an opportunity to explain, because although we know what the position is for this Parliament, we do not know what it will be for the next Parliament. The hon. Member for Henley said, quite rightly, that these are time-honoured principles. Why, according to the Conservative party, are they only good enough for this Parliament? Why are they not good enough for the next Parliament, the next 10 Parliaments or the next 20 Parliaments?
I can say for certain that the Labour party will always be fundamentally committed to human rights, to the ECHR and to the Human Rights Act 1998. Can the Minister say the same for his party?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing this debate on human rights in the UK. I have listened with great interest to the views expressed. We have a multiplicity of not only hon. Members, but hon. and learned Members, who have offered the benefit of their legal expertise.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East set out not only his case, but the broader importance of human rights as a concept, highlighting a number of specific cases and examples. That is, quite rightly, a subject of real importance to all Members, and one in which I have taken a very close interest within my portfolio. It is not only intellectually fascinating but, as hon. Members have said, it permeates our national life.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of where responsibility for human rights should sit. I will not take personally his suggestion that it be moved. The reason that it currently sits with the Ministry of Justice and with me is that, although he is absolutely right to say that it is a cross-cutting issue, the Ministry of Justice is a key defender of the rule of law, and this issue goes to the heart of that. I am sure, however, that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Ministers in the Cabinet Office will have noted his points.
As many hon. Members have said, human rights in the UK are not new. The UK has a reputation for setting the highest standards, both domestically and internationally. As has been set out, that did not begin with the ECHR, the Human Rights Act 1998 or our membership of the EU—nor will it end with our exit from the EU. “Human rights” as a distinct term may have entered common usage in this country in the 20th century and developed through international treaties and organisations, but the concept of rights—and, I might add, responsibilities—in our country goes all the way back to Magna Carta in 1215, the Petition of Right in 1628, the Bill of Rights in 1689 in England and the Claim of Right in 1689 in Scotland. The concept has evolved over many centuries.
Common law developed alongside statutes and set out rules developed by the courts to govern relationships between people and Government, which we would recognise today as “rights”. We have a strong and proud track record on that. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted when talking about her city and its university, in many of our communities, the issue is rooted more locally. I was particularly interested in her comments about the work that the university and her city are doing in that respect.
Winston Churchill, no less, was one of the main advocates for a new regional organisation that was to become the Council of Europe. In 1942, he called for the “enthronement of human rights” and in 1948, he called for a charter of human rights that would be
“guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”
The European convention on human rights, as many hon. Members have mentioned, was drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe, to safeguard basic political and civil rights.
I am always educated, not only in matters of the law, but in matters of history, by the shadow Minister, although in this case, it is a coincidence that I read David Maxwell Fyfe’s memoirs over Christmas. I suspect I am one of only a very small number of people in the House, or indeed in the country, to have done so.
As has been said, the UK was one of the first to sign up to the ECHR in 1951, before it came into force in 1953. It has been strengthened over the years by protocols, and the 1998 Act was a huge step forward in putting those rights on a footing whereby they could be enforced in the UK’s domestic courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) set out, the ECHR reflects—not in totality, but in large parts—domestic laws both passed by Parliament and in previous common law. My hon. Friend’s views on the matter are always thoughtful and considered.
How are we doing in relation to the rights that we now recognise as forming our human rights framework? Let us not judge ourselves; let us see how others judge us. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley remarked that we have a proud track record. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg considered 354 applications against the UK, which equates to 5.34 applications per million inhabitants—the lowest of all 47 states parties, and one tenth of the European average. Only 21 cases were considered by the Court to be potentially of merit and were sent to the UK for a response, with just two judgments against the UK. That touches on a point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about the need to strike a sensible and appropriate balance when considering such issues in a domestic context, which I think the UK generally does.
After the UK has left the EU, it will continue to afford its citizens access to well-established domestic and international mechanisms to bring their case and obtain appropriate remedies.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am pleased to hear that the Minister has read the biography of David Maxwell Fyfe. On our future commitment to the ECHR, at the moment there is real concern that the Conservative party’s positon is to remain a signatory for the duration of this Parliament only. Can the Minister give a guarantee for the next Parliament and beyond?
Edward Argar
If the shadow Minister is patient, I will turn to what our ongoing position is—a number of Members have made that point. He may or may not be satisfied, but I will seek to answer him.
As I was saying, individuals will be able to obtain appropriate remedies when they consider their rights to have been breached. That will remain under our common law, the devolution statutes and, of course, the Human Rights Act 1998.
At the beginning of this month, the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), asked my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, to
“give a reassurance...that the Government will not repeal or reform the Human Rights Act in the aftermath of our departure from the European Union”.
The Secretary of State answered:
“We certainly have no plans to do so”.—[Official Report, 5 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 163.]
I believe that that offers reassurance—perhaps not as specific as my shadow might wish, but it offers reassurance.
As we made clear in the Chequers White Paper, and as is clear in the political declaration, the UK is committed to membership of the European convention on human rights and will remain a party to it after we have left the European Union. The Lord Chancellor, and in this Chamber, the shadow Minister and others, read out the wording of our manifesto commitment on the matter. Our future relationship with the EU should be underpinned by our shared values of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. As reflected in my opening comments, the UK is committed to human rights. Our exit from the EU does not change that or signal a desire to reduce human rights protections.
I reiterate that most of those protections stem from work by the Council of Europe and under the ECHR, rather than from the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley set out eloquently in his speech. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of all those hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, who serve on the Council of Europe. It is an organisation that, though not spoken about as often as it perhaps should be, continues to do very good work quietly and persistently. With that in mind, while I recognise the courtesy with which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) made her point, I simply do not share her view that Brexit will leave any deep hole in human rights protections in this country.
More broadly, I too enjoyed reading Professor Miller’s recent report, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh East cited, and the work undertaken for the Scottish Government by the First Minister’s Advisory Group on Human Rights Leadership, which proposed new ways to draw further international commitments to which the UK is party into Scotland’s legislative framework. To underpin seven recommendations in the report, Professor Miller engaged in the broader debate about human rights in the context of socio-economic considerations and whether those should sit in a revised framework. That is part of a broader political and philosophical debate, with different views, as we have seen in the Chamber today. I suspect it is a debate that will continue. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would continue in this place, and I have no doubt that if it does not, he will seek a debate on exactly that subject.
The SNP spokesperson, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), asked that I read and consider the report and its contents. I will do so; I am happy to read it again and to consider it carefully. I cannot give a commitment about whether I will agree with everything in it, but I will certainly reflect on it carefully, as I do with anything she suggests that I should read.
UN human rights treaties have not been incorporated into UK domestic law, and they do not require states parties to do that. The UK has instead put in place a combination of policies and legislation to give effect to the UN human rights treaties that it has ratified. We have a long-standing tradition of not only ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically, but fulfilling our international human rights obligations. That aspect should not be neglected.
Some hon. Members touched on the report of the UN special rapporteur. As other Ministers have made clear, the Government will consider carefully the rapporteur’s interim findings, but they disagree with the conclusions reached by the rapporteur, highlighting that, compared with 2010, for example, income inequality has fallen, the number of children in workless households is at a record low, and 1 million fewer people are in absolute poverty. I suspect, however, that that is a debate for another day—it could take at least another hour and a half, if not more.
I am the Minister responsible for overseeing the UK’s obligations under the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and its optional protocol, and under the UN covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights, not forgetting the UN human rights peer review process, the universal periodic review. I take those responsibilities seriously, and last year I went in person to Geneva to discuss the UK’s role in relation to the convention against torture with officials. Broadly, in my conversation with them, I was clear—as were they—that the UK has a continuing role in leading the way on human rights in the world.
The title of this debate is “Human Rights in the UK’, so let me sum up by reflecting on the fact that the UK has a rich tapestry of rights running throughout our history, for hundreds of years, and reaching out across the globe. They neither began nor will end with the EU, and many of the key rights stem from the Council of Europe. I appreciate entirely that, during times of change, voices will rightly be raised to question protections and the future, challenging Government. It is absolutely right for that debate to take place.
Let us focus on the commitments given, the protections in place and our historical role—we should be judged on those and on this country’s proud commitment to human rights. Many have suggested that human rights matter; I go further, echoing the words of my noble Friend Lord Keen of Elie: human rights are central to the way we live now and to the way we wish to live in the future. They are an integral part of the society of which we wish to be a part, and a reflection of our identity as individuals and as a country.
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and you, Mr Gapes, for chairing it. In particular, although we might not agree on everything, I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East. I suspect that we will return to the subject in future—quite rightly so.
Tommy Sheppard
I know we are nearly out of time, so I will be brief. I thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I am slightly concerned that a few more Members did not turn up, particularly because we do not seem to have that big a distraction in the main Chamber at the moment—unlike with many debates in the Westminster Hall Chamber in the past. Perhaps as the months go on, we will encourage more of our colleagues to take part.
I have a couple of quick points to make. I will have to check the transcript, but I did not get from the Minister quite the unequivocal and categorical assurances that I sought on commitment to the existing Human Rights Act and the protections that it affords, or—several Members requested this—on no falling behind after Brexit, if rights improve in other European countries. I hope that we get such assurances in future, but that ambiguity—if no other reason—ensures that we will return to this debate in the months ahead.
Finally, I invite my Council of Europe colleague, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), to reconsider his attitude on whether social and economic rights should be accorded the same status as civil and political rights. After all, in this country we have a body of legislation that already gives people the right to education and to housing in some circumstances. As time goes on, we will want to incorporate such rights into the body of what we know as human rights. It is cold comfort, is it not, to know that we have the right to free expression if we are starving on the streets and have neither an income nor a home to live in. I am sure that we will return to the subject in the months to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered human rights in the UK.
NHS Funding: Essex
(5 years, 2 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
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered NHS funding in Essex.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I have raised the pressing need for a new hospital in Harlow on more than 20 separate occasions in the House of Commons, and this is my fourth debate on this subject. I thank my fellow Essex and Hertfordshire MPs, many of whom have kindly joined me this afternoon, for their support in the House and in our sustained campaigning efforts to secure capital funding for an all-encompassing health campus.
In May last year, I wrote to the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), to urge the Government to support the capital funding bid at the time for a new hospital. In that respect, I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker); my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who is a stalwart supporter and works closely with me in campaigning for our new hospital; my hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch), for Braintree (James Cleverly), for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford); the Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), who is another neighbour who works with me to ensure we have a first-rate hospital for the 21st century; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). They all joined me in signing the letter, and they pledged their support for a new hospital to serve our constituents.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I hope the Minister will take away my right hon. Friend’s point that healthcare in Harlow is important, certainly to the people of Harlow and Essex, but also to people in Hertfordshire. People in Bishop’s Stortford, Sawbridgeworth, Hertford and Ware are all looking for this investment, and we hope the Minister will listen carefully.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend has been an incredible supporter; his constituents will know the work he has done to lobby the Government for our new health campus. He makes an incredibly important point: this is about not just a Harlow hospital, but a hospital for the surrounding area that will serve the people of Hertfordshire and Essex, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) is also here.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
May I take the opportunity to add my support and that of colleagues in south Essex for the excellent campaign work on the additional provision in Harlow? I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will touch more broadly on the sustainability and transformation plans, particularly in south Essex. If we encourage the Secretary of State to press ahead with those plans, although there are some reservations, that will release capital expenditure in the south and further release pressure. That will not alleviate the problem completely, but it will help the issue across the county.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend makes the funding case for south Essex. As he says, the whole of Essex needs support, and I know he is supportive of a new hospital in Harlow.
The MPs in the surrounding area who wrote to the former Health Secretary said:
“The creation of a health campus…is fundamental to vitality of community and also to the economy of the entire region.”
To provide some context, the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow was built more than 50 years ago, having been completed in 1966. There is a lot to be celebrated about our hospital, but special mention must be made of the maternity unit, which was deemed outstanding in the Care Quality Commission report. It has been selected to feature for a second series of “Delivering Babies”, featuring “The Voice UK” host Emma Willis.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about the maternity ward at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, where my 26-year-old daughters were born. Although we are concentrating on Harlow, I want to make the point that £15 million of investment has been made in Clacton Hospital, which is very welcome. However, we are still having trouble recruiting GPs to coastal areas, and I would like the Minister to bear that in mind.
Robert Halfon
I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s daughters were born in the Princess Alexandra Hospital—not a fact I knew until today. Knowing their father, I am sure he was very proud that they were born in Harlow. I thank him for his support for our new hospital, and I am sure the Minister has heard the point about the need for more health investment in his part of Essex.
As one would expect, the natural ageing of the building means the estate is no longer fit for purpose, nor does it allow for service improvement. The structural materials are crumbling and the fabric of the hospital is outdated, making compliance with regulatory health and safety standards more and more challenging. Not only that, but demand for health services in Harlow has changed considerably since 1966. The population has grown by over 30,000, diagnosed physical and mental health illnesses are on the rise, and, more recently, NHS hospitals in neighbouring constituencies have closed, meaning that the Princess Alexandra Hospital now serves over 350,000 people—well beyond its envisaged capacity.
The impact of these pressures is fronted by both patients and staff. Waiting times in the A&E department are among the highest in the UK, and crowded wards are hampering patient experience. The dilapidated working environment, temperamental equipment and pressurised conditions are taking their toll on staff morale, with any hopes of enhancing performance dashed by factors beyond their control. Does the Minister not agree that we should do all we can to support our hard-working NHS staff and to champion their admirable aim to improve patient care at the Princess Alexandra Hospital?
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I absolutely support and welcome his case for investment in the Princess Alexandra. In terms of getting the improvements my right hon. Friend seeks in his hospital, as well as across our county of Essex and in neighbouring areas, it would be good to hear from the Government what plans there are in the 10-year plan to secure funding for the facilities we need.
Robert Halfon
My right hon. Friend has always been a champion for Essex—there is not an Essex issue that she is not on top of. She has been very supportive of the need for a new hospital in Harlow, and I welcome her signing and supporting the letter we wrote to the Health Secretary. She is right that we need to know how the 10-year plan will help our beautiful county—how it is going to help in west Essex, across the south and right up to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling).
In spite of the difficulties, the staff have proved they can implement changes. In March 2018, the hospital was brought out of special measures thanks to the incredible efforts of every employee, from the board members right through to the nurses, doctors, porters, cleaners and catering staff. Given the working conditions, it is no wonder that attracting and retaining well-qualified staff is so difficult. In December, the hospital operated at a 13.8% vacancy rate, and the board cited particular difficulty in filling critical nursing roles.
That issue is exacerbated by the promise of higher salaries and competitive training programmes at Barts and University College Hospital, just 30 miles from Harlow, in London. Further, Essex County Council notes the higher wages available in the privately funded social care sector as another magnet attracting staff away from our NHS hospitals. Many of those factors were never envisaged during the hospital’s construction in the 1950s, but we have the opportunity now to build a brand-new health campus that will bring healthcare services in Essex into the 21st century, as well as creating the space and training facilities for longevity.
At the start of this month, the hospital and I were delighted to welcome the Health Secretary; he saw for himself the state of affairs at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. I am incredibly grateful to him for taking the time to speak so meaningfully with the NHS staff, particularly those on the frontline—the doctors, nurses and support staff—to allow him to gauge the realities of the day-to-day operations at the hospital. I take this opportunity to ask whether the Minister will commit to visiting the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow, to continue the Health Secretary’s work. Does he recognise how useful it may be to inform future decisions about capital funding?
The Health Secretary concluded that Harlow has a strong case for capital funding. He stated how impressed he was with what the staff were managing to do in the tight working spaces, and acknowledged that a longer-term solution was essential. The board is doing all it can to set progress in motion. The trust is currently developing a pre-consultation business case and refreshing its 2017 strategic outline case, which will be submitted for approval in June. An event will be held tomorrow with stakeholders to assess the preferred way forward, including for the location of the new health campus, with a final decision to be made next month.
I understand from discussions between the Health Secretary and the trust’s executive board that the Department of Health and Social Care has spent its current capital allocation, and that major capital projects will be considered following the upcoming spending review. Will the Minister provide an assurance that, when the time comes, he will take all the necessary steps and work with the Treasury to release the capital funding for the new hospital we desperately need? Will he also set out a timeframe for that decision?
The trust’s executive board estimates that the health campus would cost £400 million. It is one of the seven new hospital projects seeking more than £100 million. I assure the Minister that that investment would provide a long-term solution, ultimately saving the Government, the hospital and the taxpayer millions of pounds. Princess Alexandra Hospital has been fortunate to receive pockets of Government funding, for which we are incredibly appreciative. In December, it received £9.5 million to provide additional bed capacity, on top of a £2 million investment in September ahead of the busy winter period. Successful capital funding bids led to the four-month turnaround of the £3.3 million new Charnley ward in January and the addition of a second maternity theatre last year.
I acknowledge that the Government are supporting the hospital, but those stop-gap investments were quick fixes when the need became urgent. Surely it is now time to look at the bigger picture. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we must be wise with taxpayers’ money, and that to do so, we must address the root causes of the problems—the reasons why we need additional space for beds and extra funding for our A&E department, which is one of the busiest in the country?
Giles Watling
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those problems are not always merely a question of funding but are frequently to do with hospital management, which sometimes fails? We politicians, and the Government, should stand by to offer support and hold management to account.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is right. We are very lucky that the management of Princess Alexandra Hospital are second to none. We were in significant difficulties, but they turned the hospital around and are doing a remarkable job. They are doing their side of the equation; we need the Government to do the other side.
Mr Prisk
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. Does he agree that the issue, and the reason we need long-term funding, is that both our constituencies face significant pressures for additional housing? Simply coping with what we have now is difficult enough. We need long-term funding to provide healthcare to the new communities that will be built.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend again hits the nail on the head. We have a problem at the moment, but we will have thousands and thousands of new houses in our area. It will be impossible to maintain the hospital as is with that population influx.
A new health campus would provide the additional space we desperately need and make a huge difference to patient and staff satisfaction. Patient flow would improve with greater bed capacity. Reduced pressure on staff to turn over beds quickly would allow them to spend more time with patients, delivering the quality of care they are eager to provide. What is more—I know this will please the Minister—the Government would no longer need to fork out millions of pounds for temporary add-on structures to create space for more beds. We have a ward that was literally built on stilts above a car park.
The health campus would take into account the anticipated population growth in Harlow and provide the flexibility that is currently lacking. Working conditions for staff would greatly improve, the attractive state-of-the-art facilities would allow the hospital to recruit from the very best, and of course the skills and training opportunities would be limitless. I am heading up an inquiry on the fourth industrial revolution in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee, so I am well aware of the skills deficit we face in this country, which is set only to widen in the age of automation.
Robert Halfon
The health campus would work closely with Public Health England, whose timely move to Harlow in 2022 would allow for unrivalled research and training partnerships.
The hospital is already working with the award-winning Harlow College to provide apprenticeships, and with the University of Essex on training, but we could go further. High-class nursing degree apprenticeships could be delivered at an education centre on site, rather than sending staff away on courses that cost valuable time and money. These career development opportunities would go a long way to improve staff retention, and the board would no longer be forced to pay expensive agency providers to fill vacancies.
In line with the NHS 10-year plan, this digitally enabled, purpose-built health campus would provide the flexibility to adapt and take advantage of technological advances in medicine and science. Harlow would become the health science capital of England if the Department would allow it to have that future.
In summary, we have a hospital that has outstanding staff and is improving daily, yet it has an ageing infrastructure that is not fit for purpose, and it is currently spending millions on repairs that could be spent on the frontline. A new Harlow health campus for the 21st century would save the Treasury money in the long run, because it would mean an end to this constant need for capital refurbishments, hugely cut down on agency staff and help to cut the cost of healthcare in west Essex more generally, providing an enormous number of modern services under one roof.
The hospital, its staff and the MPs who represent them all have grand aims for the future of healthcare in Essex. I urge the Minister and the Government to pick up the baton, to champion our hard-working NHS staff and to dip into the £20.5 billion of additional NHS funding announced in the Budget to deliver the health campus that we desperately need.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate and on being—I hope he will not mind me referring to him in this way—a warrior for Harlow. There is no doubt that he has made a strong and welcome case for investment in the Princess Alexandra. It is clear that Harlow needs a new hospital, and that a new campus can meet the long-term health objectives of both Harlow and neighbouring areas.
That brings me to the question of the health challenge across the whole of Essex when it comes to funding and investment in the NHS and the delivery of better healthcare services, especially given the significant levels of housing and population growth. There is an irony here: central Government provide money to local authorities for housing, looking at capacity studies, new growth and things of that nature, but we are not joined up enough across Government to release some of those funds back into the health economy.
Importantly—I hope the Minister will recognise this—the comprehensive spending review presents an opportunity for the Government to look at how the funding formulas can be connected to long-term economic and population growth. Of course, to ease pressures on hospitals and the health and social care systems, we also need investment in my constituency in a new multi-purpose healthcare centre that brings GPs and other health practitioners together at a local level. I am grateful to the Department of Health and Social Care, because I recently met the Secretary of State, who endorsed and gave his personal support to a new health centre in Witham and has also put pressure on the clinical commissioning group to work on the delivery of that, as the Minister is aware.
Returning to the point that I made in my intervention earlier, the new 10-year plan for health and the NHS is a perfect opportunity and window to consider how the Department can join up the whole system, make it much more integrated and look at delivery. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) mentioned GPs; in our part of Essex and in rural parts of Essex we struggle to recruit them. We have the excellent Anglia Ruskin University training the next generation of GPs at a rate of 100 per year, thanks to its new medical school, and we want to benefit from that; I think the whole of Essex will benefit from it.
I hope the Minister, in his remarks, will look at the whole health economy in Essex and take on board the case that has been made today that we need not just investment, but a long-term vision from the Department.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
Sir Christopher, it is good to see you in your place and to take part in this important debate. I start, as I should, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing another debate—his fourth—on this matter. He is well known for his tireless work on matters of healthcare in Harlow and across the whole of Essex. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) described him a moment ago as a “warrior for Harlow”; I think that was in response to the compliment he paid her of being a “champion for Essex”. I listened to her speech and her earlier intervention, and I will say that, should she wish to, I would be delighted if she joined me in a debate next Tuesday on the 10-year plan.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham is of course right that this is an opportunity. We have set out a comprehensive plan, full of ambitions to link up healthcare, backed up by an implementation plan. I am hopeful, because this is the first time that has been seen. Layer on to that the integration of health and social care in the Green Paper, and I hope she will agree that those are steps forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has not only secured debates, but has had a number of meetings with my predecessor on a number of issues relating to the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust. I notice that today he welcomed the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who visited the trust two weeks ago. I know the Secretary of State was hugely impressed by the outstanding staff and the good work they do, and I have noted the kind invitation extended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow to come to Harlow, which I accept; I look forward to coming later in the year.
On a number of occasions, my right hon. Friend has raised the proposal to build a new hospital, which demonstrates his commitment to what he and I both recognise as the most important issue in his constituency. The Government recognise that a number of trusts face estates challenges; that is why there is a commitment to upgrade the NHS estate, with £3.9 billion in capital investment for buildings and facilities by 2022-23. I will come on to the comprehensive spending review in a second.
I noted, of course, the interventions from other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) made the point about Harlow’s importance to the wider health economy in Hertford and Stortford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) reminded me that we must have the staff in the hospitals. The workforce section of the 10-year plan sets that out.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow knows that the NHS’s buildings and services are being modernised and transformed through the sustainability and transformation fund investment. That money is going toward a range of programmes. I recognise that in July 2018 the trust put forward a revised bid for around £330 million, with potential for that to be funded through sustainability and transformation partnerships funding, private finance contributions and some land disposals.
I know that the bid was well supported and attracted a lot of careful attention but, as my right hon. Friend will recognise, there was strong competition from a range of schemes across the country; the fund was heavily over-subscribed and there was some rigorous prioritisation. I hope he will recognise that officials from both NHS England and NHS Improvement are working closely with the trust. They are supportive of the capital bid that has been put forward and are working with the trust on the programme to look at that bid for the future. They continue to develop the options to tackle the challenges that the people of Harlow and the wider economy face, and to secure that best outcome. I guarantee him that that work will continue, and that I will ensure that I take an interest in his scheme.
I know that my right hon. Friend will have recognised and welcomed a number of tranche 4 bids that did secure some money for the trust for additional bed capacity, improving emergency department performance and patient flow and reducing bed occupancy. That scheme represents a key part of the NHS trust’s plan to dramatically improve and transform the emergency care pathways. I acknowledge that that was not the scheme he wanted, but I hope he will recognise that it has been extremely helpful, and that the trust has made excellent use of that capital.
I know that my right hon. Friend will wish to acknowledge that there has also been wider recognition of bids from across Essex; there was money for Hertfordshire and West Essex in Luton, in the Hertfordshire and West Essex vascular surgery network and in West Hertfordshire hospitals. I hope he will agree that there is continued commitment from the Government to the NHS and to the patients in the wider region.
I will directly address the point that my right hon. Friend raised with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. There will be further opportunities to access capital. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham pointed out, there will be a comprehensive spending review this year, in which we clearly have the chance to link up those things she mentioned; I entirely take her point on board. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will recognise that the CSR will be when decisions on future capital allocations will be made for the next five years. The 2015 CSR first did that, and that has continued, and we expect it to happen in the next CSR. I assure my right hon. Friend that I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will listen to his financial appeals for his constituents.
I hope that my right hon. Friend recognises the wave 1 and 2 capital funding secured during 2017-18 to support the redesign of the emergency department at the hospital. That was targeted very much at improving those facilities. I hope that he also recognises that that was on top of what I referred to earlier. I am sure he will support, as I do, the fact that that has gone into championing excellence in the paediatric emergency department.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Harlow science hub and campus programme. Partly owing to his campaigning, there will be a new public health campus in Harlow, and I pay tribute to his efforts. I am pleased to say to him—as I am sure he knows—that that is still on schedule. A phased opening from 2021 will ultimately see approximately 2,700 people based there from 2024. Public Health England and the Princess Alexandra Hospital have discussed what other opportunities for Harlow’s wider health economy might arise from basing the campus there. I hope to be able to share with him more details on that in the near future.
I commend my right hon. Friend’s work in raising support for the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust’s bigger capital bid. I reassure him that there will be opportunities to access that capital in the spending review process in the latter part of this year. He challenged me on the timeline of that. As someone once closely associated with the former Chancellor, he will know that the Treasury does not easily give out its timelines. “Soon” or “this autumn” are probably appropriate answers to his inquiry.
On numerous occasions, my right hon. Friend has raised the estate issues facing the trust, in the House, in meetings with my predecessors and with the current Secretary of State. I look forward to accepting his invitation to continue working with him on this issue for the people of Harlow and for the NHS in Essex.
Question put and agreed to.
Primary Schools: Nurture and Alternative Provision
(5 years, 2 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
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered nurture and alternative provision in primary schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue. I am also grateful to colleagues who have come along. On what is a standard Brexit day in the House, an education debate might be nice light relief for us all.
I got into politics to talk about education. As somebody who always wanted to be a teacher before accidentally finding myself here, I have the privilege of working on the Education Committee, which has undertaken—before my time on it—interesting inquiries on both alternative provision and the benefit of early intervention for the life chances of young people. It is important that we get the foundation of our education system right. In my view, education should always be our priority; without it, nothing else works. Without the right support early in children’s lives, the challenges and costs only grow over time.
This debate covers two specific areas: “nurture care”—I am grateful to nurtureuk for the information it shared with me on that—and alternative provision, each of which I will address in turn. Nurture care begins at home but is a crucial aspect in the early years of schooling, especially in deprived areas and for troubled families. Across my constituency, there are relatively high levels of family breakdown, mental health issues and deprivation, which is a perfect storm of challenges for both parents and children.
Those challenges have an impact on educational attainment. In Mansfield, 27% of children start primary school without the core abilities needed to succeed, including speech and language skills. I have seen this at first hand. Barely a week goes by when I do not visit a local school. I have seen five-year-olds still in nappies, unable to communicate properly, not knowing what a book is or how to hold one and unable to settle in primary school. The Government introduced free childcare, starting for two-year-olds, aimed at supporting such children sooner, but inevitably it seems that those most in need are the ones who do not take it up.
Children who have a good start in life tend to do better at school, attend lessons regularly and form meaningful friendships, and they are significantly less likely to offend or experience mental health problems in later life. Nurture care in schools ensures that children engage with more supportive experiences, giving them the necessary social and emotional skills to succeed and to develop resilience.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredible speech. I am proud to serve with him on the Education Committee. On the importance of nurture groups, does he agree that schools across our constituencies could be encouraged to introduce them if their extra efforts to be inclusive by doing so could be somehow acknowledged in Ofsted reports?
Ben Bradley
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments. I absolutely agree. Recent Ofsted proposals to look more at the holistic support within schools, and not only at academic results, are positive. However, that could certainly go further, and this kind of provision could be included in that.
Mansfield has some great examples of schools that work to provide nurture care for their pupils. I particularly mention Forest Town Primary School, which supports its most vulnerable pupils through a nurture group. That group is almost a school within a school, providing holistic care to help children engage with education early.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Last year, I went round several Coventry schools. Some were particularly short of resources to employ what we might call specialist teachers, for kids who have special needs. We found the same thing in nursery provision in some of the most deprived areas in Coventry. I do not want to get too political, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should try to address that somewhere down the line?
Ben Bradley
I agree. There is certainly a case to be made for specialist training and for changes to the way we train teachers, which I know from discussions with Education Ministers that the Government have touched on.
That Forest Town centre is a separate building on the school site, allowing young people who find mainstream education challenging in those early years to be in a quieter, more personal and supportive environment, and to slowly build up to the full experience. Some have special educational needs or challenging situations at home, but all are able to grow at their own pace with extra support. It is a bit like alternative provision, but it is on site and is therefore more flexible, allowing the children to move in and out of that mainstream setting and to have a space to call their own within the school. Equally, they are not excluded from their social networks in the same way as if they were sent to off-site provision. The teachers at Forest Town do a fantastic job, and their hard work and supportive care makes a huge difference to those children’s lives.
Emma Hardy
The different curricula offered to children in nurture care are more bespoke and suitable for those children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the progress of those children should therefore not be judged by the same measures as their peers? They are getting a bespoke and individualised experience.
Ben Bradley
I agree; there has to be some leeway. We often talk in this place about people’s aspirations for the future. For some people, that means undertaking A-levels and going to university, but for others it just means being able to live a relatively normal life, to get on in school and get into employment; the simpler things. There should be an acceptance of that in the way that we judge schools more broadly.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Education Committee. I note that several Committee members are here. On his point about on-site organisation within a school, he will know that the Committee’s alternative provision report suggested that, whether it is learning support units or other organisations within schools, it is important for teachers to be properly trained to deal with children who have difficulties. At the moment, there are often supply teachers or temporary teachers in those organisations, who do not necessarily have those skills, which can make a world of difference. As he describes, it is so much better for a child to stay within the main school and to move between the mainstream unit and the separate unit, depending on his or her difficulties.
Ben Bradley
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and particularly thank him and the other members of the Select Committee for coming along today. I absolutely agree—I will touch on this later—that it is important that this is not exclusion from the classroom; it is a nurturing and supporting environment to help the children to succeed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate. The fact that so many hon. Members have intervened indicates our interest. Like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), I believe that there is a real need for the short-term, focused intervention that is found in nurture groups for children with particular social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Does he agree that we need to increase the availability of nurture groups, which will allow individual children to reach their potential, but also ensure that teachers are able to better spread their time and energy throughout classes in which children who are unable to learn in a typical classroom set-up are being taught in a dedicated way that benefits everyone?
Ben Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Later I will touch on some statistics from Northern Ireland that I hope he will find interesting. I agree with him. The reason why the provision at Forest Town, in particular, works is that although it is in a separate building and environment, it is included within the school. That allows the teachers to engage with it and children to dip in and out, and allows the integrated and supported approach that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is incredibly beneficial.
The earlier we can get children and families engaged with nurture care, the better. Children learn best when they have strong self-esteem, a sense of belonging, and resilience. Nurture groups were first developed in London in 1969 by educational psychologist Marjorie Boxall. Large numbers of young children were entering primary school in inner London with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties, which led to high demand on special school places in particular. Marjorie Boxall understood that these children had not received early support and were not ready to meet the demands of primary school. As a response, nurture care was developed, and it has consistently proved to be an effective way of helping disadvantaged children.
Nurture groups tend to offer short-term, inclusive and focused intervention. The groups are classes of between six and 12 children, supported by the whole school—not just by specialist staff for that particular site, but by teachers from across the school and by parents, who are often included in the provision. Each group is run by a couple of members of staff. They assess learning, communication and emotional needs and try to break down the barriers to learning in the mainstream environment.
Crucially, the children who attend nurture groups remain an active part of their main class and their school. They are not excluded; they are not taken off site into alternative provision. They are able to engage in the classroom with their peers wherever that is possible and wherever they are comfortable. I will touch on this again later, but I strongly support programmes that allow children to remain in mainstream schooling to engage with their peers. That is better for the child and for the taxpayer wherever it is possible.
The relationship between staff and pupils in nurture groups provides a consistent and supportive example that children can base their own behaviour on. For so many children, role models are simply vital, and this caring approach can be hugely successful. It engages children with education, giving them a positive and enjoyable learning experience, and it can help where children do not get the same support at home.
Nurture groups have been working successfully for more than 40 years right across the UK. That statement is supported by a number of studies. Last year, in my constituency, I was pleased to meet nurtureuk, which is the national charity supporting this whole-school intervention. Its figures show that this provision works. One school in Kent running a nurture programme saw exclusions drop by 84%, which I am sure that hon. Members will agree is a remarkable figure.
A 2016 Queen’s University Belfast study also supports the effectiveness of nurture groups. It evaluated the impact of 30 such groups in Northern Ireland and found them to be cost-effective. In addition, although 77% of children who entered nurture groups exhibited difficult behaviour, that had reduced to just 20% at the end of the programme.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he share my concern in this respect? Nurture groups sound absolutely fantastic and definitely suitable for the children. I wonder whether we would find nurture groups and the approach of looking at the causes of that behaviour in schools that have zero-tolerance behaviour policies.
Ben Bradley
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The point that she raises may not be one for discussion now, but it is certainly interesting. There absolutely does have to be a balance. I am a firm believer—having been to a variety of schools, with different atmospheres—in discipline and teaching children the value of that, but equally in respecting the needs particularly of vulnerable children in cases such as these. I do not think that nurture care has to be a formal thing, but I do think that there has to be that flexibility of approach to give a more bespoke experience to children who need it.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is very kind; he has been most gracious to us all in taking our interventions. He mentioned Queen’s University. I made a contribution in a debate last year and used the statistics to which he referred. When it comes to summing up and integrating all the information from across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are many examples of good practice—the hon. Gentleman has used one from Belfast—and perhaps the Minister could take them on board.
Ben Bradley
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will do that. It is important to weigh up all this evidence when we are deciding where to put our time and energy in education. I certainly think that primary school and the early years environment should be a key priority.
Over the last three years, school exclusions have risen by more than 40%. If there is ever a time to invest in early intervention and nurture care, it is now. This early support, if properly managed, can set children up for their whole lives at school. Some will continue to need help, and it is especially important that those children who have needed this low-level, ongoing support throughout their time at primary school do not then lose all this help when they go to secondary school; that transition is vital. We can be more inclusive, support children to stay in school, and reduce exclusions, but we have to invest in that both financially and with the time and training for teachers.
The links between school exclusion and social exclusion are well known. Children who are excluded from school are far more likely than their peers to have grown up in the care of the state or in poverty, and they go on to have much higher rates of mental illness and are more likely to end up in prison. That cycle needs to be broken somewhere. These children are the most vulnerable in our society and need greater support. We need to do more to provide a supportive environment and to ensure that our education system provides a positive, safe and reliable space for the most vulnerable children.
Nurture care can turn around a child’s life and help secure a stable future in adulthood. This is not a debate about financial efficiency, but I would like to highlight a 2017 Institute for Public Policy Research report, which argued that every cohort of permanently excluded pupils will go on to cost the state an extra £2.1 billion. The Government should support nurture programmes because that is the right thing to do, but I also argue that spending on nurture care is one of the best-value options for education expenditure. It is proactive, preventive support. Just as we are looking at prevention in the NHS long-term plan, so we should be looking at it in education.
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman is making an absolutely excellent speech. It is quite surprising for me to find myself agreeing so wholeheartedly with a Government Member, but the point that I would like to make is that there is not just a financial consideration, but an accountability consideration. Even if schools have the money that is needed to provide nurture care and even if, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, they would have the money that would be used for exclusions to provide this early intervention and care, schools still might not want to do it unless the accountability system is changed to recognise this as good, worthwhile work.
Ben Bradley
I absolutely agree. We mentioned briefly the changes in Ofsted’s approach that I think are positive. We could do more to highlight some of the good practice nationally and to incentivise schools to do this. We talk a lot in the Select Committee about special educational needs and disability provision. I think that schools would love to have more independence in relation to how they provide this kind of support. I think that, if it came with the right accountability and the right financial support, teachers would embrace it.
At this point, I would like to mention the Select Committee’s recent report entitled “Tackling disadvantage in the early years”, which notes that there is currently not enough of a clear strategic direction in early years education. The report argues that the Government have to remove barriers to progression for early years teachers to encourage the recruitment and retention of a skilled early years workforce. We need experienced teachers who can provide effective nurture care and help with the transition from nursery to primary school. I welcome the recent announcements on recruitment and retention from Government, which have also been welcomed by the schools that I have visited since. Similar incentives and support in relation to early years could be equally helpful.
The report praises maintained nursery schools for ensuring excellent outcomes for disadvantaged children and argues that we need to fully fund maintained nursery schools by the end of the financial year. This is a debate about primary education, but the earlier we can start support programmes for vulnerable children, the more effective that intervention will be. As one of my constituents working in the nursery sector recently said to me:
“The early years of life are the most important of life, the building blocks for their future, miss these bricks and it all comes tumbling down.”
I thought that that was quite a poetic way of describing it.
The report discusses the importance of a strong home learning environment and of reviewing the evidence in relation to interventions that support parents and families in creating a positive home learning environment. It is important that we continue to review best practice and share information about the forms of nurture care that are the most effective, and that they engage with parents to help to provide that.
Let me turn to alternative provision more broadly. It is often seen as somewhere only the worst behaved pupils should go, but alternative provision is much more than that and, done properly, can provide excellent education. It is important to remember that alternative provision also covers education for pupils who cannot attend mainstream education for a variety of reasons, including health reasons, and is not only for those who have been excluded from school. It includes pupil referral units, alternative provision academies, free schools and other settings, and there are some excellent examples of settings that provide tailored education to the pupils who have struggled the most in mainstream education. The alternative school in Accrington, for example, offers a holistic and flexible full-time school experience, designed to respond to the needs of young people who are unable to remain in mainstream school. It caters for up to 90 pupils a year spread across three campuses in the north-west. It specialises in a curriculum designed specifically for people aged eight to 18 who require that smaller, more personalised and individual approach to their education. I think that is a positive path and example to follow.
Alternative provision, when done right, works well, but too often it is seen as a dumping ground for difficult children—a way to get them out of a school. We need that narrative to change. As I noted earlier, I believe that schools should try to keep children in a mainstream setting where possible. The correlation between exclusions and problems in later life is significant. I have raised concerns previously with the Secretary of State in the Education Committee about interventions such as isolation.
Ben Bradley
I know the hon. Lady feels strongly about that. I will come to her in a second. When done right, such interventions can be helpful, but too many reports suggest that children are taken out of a classroom not to be supported, but to be kept out of the way.
Emma Hardy
I was going to intervene just before the hon. Gentleman mentioned isolation rooms. One of the points in our Education Committee report was about buddying a mainstream school with an alternative provision school, so that teachers can share knowledge and expertise. I know that some initiatives are now happening, whereby mainstream teachers can teach in special schools for a while, and vice versa, so that they have that shared knowledge.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about isolation rooms. There is a world of difference between nurture and an isolation room, where children get no education whatsoever, but are made to sit there with a sheet to occupy them, not educate them, yet we wonder why the children have not made any progress at the end of that period.
Ben Bradley
I agree with the hon. Lady, and the Government have promoted partnership working between schools in some ways. We see that work between schools in the independent sector and comprehensives. I welcome that and I think teachers would welcome the opportunity to get a broader experience, and the training and development that comes with that.
Providing proper support to children, by not isolating but helping them, would be more effective and cheaper in the long-run than exclusion, but schools need investment to be able to do that. I would like to see alternative provision run more along the lines of a nurture care programme, where possible. Obviously, I acknowledge that separate settings can be the most appropriate option for some pupils. However, where possible, it would be good to do more to include, rather than exclude, pupils who are struggling in mainstream education. I would also like to see a focus on reintegration. Just as nurture groups tend to work as a short-term approach to alternative provision, rather than being a final, permanent destination for pupils, there should be a way of tailoring support with a view to bringing that child into mainstream education, at least for part of the time, further down the line.
The figures show that more than 77% of pupils in AP settings have special educational needs, so it is important to look at special educational needs and disability provision, and how it can effectively help pupils at risk of dropping out of mainstream education.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend mentioned children with special educational needs. Does he agree that there is a significant problem when something like 4,000 children with special educational needs are excluded each school week? Unfortunately, they often go into a postcode lottery of poor alternative provision, if they get any at all.
Ben Bradley
I absolutely recognise that challenge. Our existing inquiry on SEND in the Education Committee highlights the postcode lottery element and the confrontational experience that many parents face in trying to get the support that they need. While it seems that a lot of those involved have recognised the will of the legislation and the ideas behind it to be right, there is a practical barrier, which causes problems so that it does not always offer the support that it should.
The Government’s vision for alternative provision, outlined last spring, was largely positive, with a commitment to ensuring that it becomes an integral part of the education system, with high-quality outcomes for pupils. It is positive that the Government increased funding for higher needs and alternative provision in Nottinghamshire. The budget has risen from just shy of £60 million in 2017 to £64 million this year. That is welcome and it will have a positive impact on pupils in my constituency. However, there is still far more to do. The SEND challenge is probably the biggest problem we face in our education system. It is not simple to solve, and it affects mainstream schooling and budgets across the board.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I visited a school in my constituency, St Anne’s Infants School, which won the Marjorie Boxall Quality Mark Award for its nurture group in 2016. I appreciate the really good work it does. Yesterday, I was in a Westminster Hall debate on special educational needs. There are real concerns around the country about the lack of funding for that. The hon. Gentleman just mentioned integrating this into the education service. It should not just be excellent groups that are getting excellent provision in some schools. We need to ensure that children—whether they have emotional or physical needs, or just need a decent education—get support in a joined-up way.
Ben Bradley
Absolutely. I welcome some of the things that the Government have done in recent pilots for mental health support in schools, and some of the positive things that are happening there, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right that that needs to happen across the board. Every child who has that need should be able to access the support, rather than its being a postcode lottery, as has been described.
The quality of alternative provision is too variable across the country. While some settings have brilliant teachers trying to turn around lives, others do not have that focus, and the most vulnerable pupils often do not get the education that others do. Both in SEND and behaviour management, one size does not fit all, so schools need to find and offer the right intervention.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to look at ways in which the Government can do more to support nurture provision in primary schools, with a view to offering early support, particularly in deprived areas that are most in need, helping more children to stay on in mainstream education and cutting the number of exclusions, thereby giving children in my constituency better life chances, as well as saving the taxpayer money in the long-term. I would like to see more of that supportive focus within alternative provision, too: support for schools to have more in-school alternatives to exclusion or outside provision. I believe that that approach is one of the most effective ways to support vulnerable pupils.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) on securing this important debate. It is good to see so many fellow colleagues from the Education Committee in attendance.
Nurture groups are recognised as the best way forward for children, especially those from a disadvantaged background. In Scotland, we have a system that we call “Getting it right for every child”, which is the basis of how children are put at the centre of any educational initiative. Having been a member of the local education committee when I was a councillor, I can tell hon. Members that this GIRFEC policy is well thought of, well established and well used across Scotland.
Nurtureuk has pointed out that there are more nurture groups in Scotland, especially in Glasgow, Angus and West Lothian, than in the rest of the UK, which sends a signal that education in Scotland is setting about things in the best way possible. Indeed, the First Minister has made the closing of the attainment gap—the gap between children from the poorest and richest households in Scotland—the cause célèbre of this particular term of office.
All children and young people deserve to get the support they need to reach their full learning potential. The evidence for the use of nurture groups to do that is long-established. Children and young people should learn in the environment that best suits their needs, whether that is in a mainstream or special school setting. Ninety-seven per cent. of children with additional support needs are educated in mainstream schools in Scotland. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 places duties on education authorities to identify, provide for and review the additional support needs of their pupils.
In my time on the Education Committee, in particular in this Session, as my colleague the hon. Member for Mansfield said, there has been a lot of focus on SEND issues. We are still taking in evidence. I do not think that there is any debate or difference across the Chamber about the need to focus on giving all our young children the best possible start in their educational life, even if they come from a background that does not lead them to know what education should be like.
The phenomenon is not new. I remember many years ago talking to a teacher who could not believe that young children were coming into school unable to hold a book. If that was 40 years ago and that experience is replicated across the UK, it must be even worse now. Children might well be able to use a tablet, but many of them do not understand the value of books.
Nurture groups help to give children, teachers and the support-for-learning assistants in schools a real insight into pupils and how they can best develop. They also help to develop resilience in children. Nurture UK defines the outcomes from nurture groups as greater academic attainment and improved behaviour. As we all know, if children are to learn, they need to be in the right state to behave and to sit and listen. A large mainstream classroom is not necessarily the best place for that to happen; nurture groups are typically much smaller. As my friend and colleague on the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Mansfield, has said, nurture groups can be on site. It is important that children feel part of the main school, because that helps them to improve their behaviour.
Nurture groups also help to improve attendance and reduce exclusions, which is an important point, and they can help to provide a whole-school ethos. It should not simply be about those children in a small group in one area of the school. Where nurture groups work well, the whole-school ethos is affected and improved. I can give a simple example. My granddaughter, who is educated in Perth, comes home and says things such as, “I can’t do this yet,” which is a huge improvement on “I cannae dae that”—full stop—which I used to hear from students who came to me in further education in West Lothian. When people start to nurture young children by saying simple things like that, it really improves their life chances.
Emma Hardy
On school ethos, is the hon. Lady as concerned and deeply disturbed as I am by recent comments in the press about “flattening the grass” policies? The CEO of one academy trust advocates going into assemblies and bullying and humiliating a child until they are in tears as a way to intimidate the rest of the children into silence. Does she agree that that is not the kind of ethos that we want to promote in our schools—one where children are bullied or shamed until they cry if they do not behave themselves?
Marion Fellows
I totally agree that that is not the way that children should be helped to learn.
I do not want to stray too far from the point, but I did not know much about the English education system until I joined the Education Committee in 2015. It was a steep learning curve and I still struggle with the idea that schools are not run by local authorities, that different types of schools can be run differently, and that some schools are seen as “good” by Ofsted because there are not many exclusions and because they get high academic results. I agree with other hon. Members that it is better for everyone in the community, and for society at large, to have children who come out of school as better people, more enriched, curious and ready to learn in different ways, rather than simply being able to pass a standard exam.
In my experience of teaching in further education colleges, I saw many children who were damaged by a school system that did not suit them. I am not saying that the Scottish ethos and the Scottish way are perfect, because no education system can be, but putting children at the heart of the education system and committing to getting it right for every child is the best way forward. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing the debate, and the other hon. Members who have contributed.
We would welcome any proposal that supported children struggling with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, especially when that approach is backed up by more than two decades of research and more than 60 academic studies that show its positive effects. Inclusion is at the heart of the nurture model and there is a wealth of evidence that it works.
In the early days of the coalition, the then Secretary of State for Education set the continued direction of travel when he stated that he wanted to remove the “bias towards inclusion”. Yesterday, the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), said:
“Inclusion is…not always the right answer for children or their families.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 310WH.]
Today, however, a member of the Minister’s party has brought forward this debate about the virtues of an inclusive policy. I hope that this Minister can clear up the confusion and clarify the Government’s policy on inclusion.
Nurture groups that are delivered in schools and supported by a teacher and teaching assistant cost about £10,000 to 12,000 per student and in excess of £120,000 per year. In the current climate, with cuts to schools’ budgets of £1.7 billion, coupled with a continually falling rate in real terms of pupil premium moneys since 2015, it is hard to see how the groups can be sustained, let alone expanded.
In fact, since 2011 at least 100 nurture groups have had to close as a result of a lack of funding. In a recent survey by the National Education Union, more than three quarters of teachers confirmed that there were now fewer support assistants and teaching assistant posts.
Kerry McCarthy
I was going to mention teaching assistants in my last intervention, because they are so important. For a child who needs extra attention and one-to-one support, whether because of SEND or emotional difficulties, they can often be the difference between their being able to stay in the class or needing to go to a nurture group. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a false economy to slash schools’ funding so that they cannot employ teaching assistants any more?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. In a recent survey, almost 100% of teachers said that the level of staff cuts was having a negative effect on the support that they can give pupils who need extra help.
Emma Hardy
One thing that we would perhaps all agree on is that the pupil premium has been effective in providing additional money and giving teachers additional support. Does my hon. Friend share my significant concern that some multi-academy trusts are operating their own funding formula and giving a school less core funding? They are saying to that school, “You get lots of funding through your pupil premium, so you don’t need as much core funding.” Within each multi-academy trust, the bulk of the money is not going where it should—to the school with the high pupil premium—but being reallocated. Does she agree that that is wrong?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I agree that it is wrong. There is a lot of mystery surrounding exactly where some of the pupil premium money is going. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that when he sums up.
Early intervention works. In the past, Ofsted has praised nurture groups as having “highly significant and far-reaching” positive impacts on young children and their families. Nurture groups have the potential to be part of a wider holistic framework that supports children with additional difficulties, but their value is not being met with investment or support from the Government, who do not see the value of early help. That is evidenced by the fact that in the past five years, local authority early intervention budgets have been slashed by more than £740 million, 1,200 Sure Start centres have gone and budgets for children’s centres across England have decreased by 42%.
As I know from my previous career, for nurture groups to succeed there needs to be an acknowledgment that the work being completed in the school environment needs to be supported at home, and that often the children who need the support of a nurture group are also having a difficult time at home. Historically, those children would have received help at home to support the help that they were receiving in school from statutory children’s services in the shape of child in need plans, but savage local government cuts under the misguided mantra of austerity have led to such services being beyond breaking point, with more than 400,000 children now classed as in need. Furthermore, another 1,700 children are being referred for extra help every single day and there is a looming £3.1 billion funding gap for local authorities by 2025. As this situation is coupled with extensive year-long waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services, it is easy to see why so many children are slipping through the net.
The Education Committee’s recent report, “Forgotten children”, criticised the Government for their
“strong focus on school standards”,
which
“has led to school environments and practices that have resulted in disadvantaged children being disproportionately excluded”,
putting pressure on an already struggling alternative provider sector, where the number of children with SEND has increased by more than 50% in recent years. Pupils who are claiming free school meals remain over-represented in exclusion figures. Over 140,000 of them faced fixed-period exclusions during 2016 and 2017.
Nurture groups and other initiatives can prevent exclusions. As has already been stated, one primary school has said that its nurture group reduced its exclusion rate by 84%. With all of that in mind, can the Minister let us know when the delayed findings of the Timpson review will be revealed?
It really is time that the Government looked more holistically at children’s needs, at early intervention and at models that actually work. Last year, more than 120 national organisations wrote to the Prime Minister, stating unequivocally that this Government are ignoring children right across the board. I hope that the Minister can offer some assurances in his response today that those organisations will not have to repeat that exercise this year.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure, Sir Christopher, to serve under your chairmanship—again, I think. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), on not only securing the debate but opening it so effectively and with such an interesting speech.
All schools, including primary schools, should be safe environments, with good behaviour, where pupils are respectful of one another and able to fulfil their potential. An effective whole-school culture should set high expectations and standards for all pupils, while providing support for the most vulnerable children, including those with mental health issues, those in care and those with special educational needs and disabilities.
As the Secretary of State set out in his speech to the Resolution Foundation last July, one of our Department’s top priorities is to create a system that helps the most disadvantaged children to reach their full potential. So the question is: how do we ensure that we give children the best start in life?
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s argument that too many children still fall behind with their communication and language skills early on. We also know that it is hard to close the gaps that emerge. Some 28% of children finish their reception year still without the early communication, language and literacy skills that they need to succeed. The Secretary of State has therefore set out his ambition to halve that figure by 2028. To support that ambition, we are investing more than £100 million in our social mobility programme, which includes £20 million for high-quality, evidence-based training and professional development for pre-reception early years staff in disadvantaged areas; £26 million for a network of English hubs, to promote effective early language and effective reading; and £10 million to understand what works, which will be deployed in partnership with the Education Endowment Foundation.
Emma Hardy
Unfortunately, the Minister has failed to address the other point that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) made, which was about children with social and emotional problems. The Minister briefly mentioned children with SEND and children starting from a delayed academic standpoint, but what support will this Government give to children with social and emotional problems? Is it using initiatives, pilots or anything?
Nick Gibb
I will come to that point in a moment; if the hon. Lady will be a little patient, I will address that and the issue of mental health, in particular.
Of course, what happens in early years settings is only part of the story; what happens in the home is central to children’s outcomes. We can do more to ensure that all parents have access to the best advice, tools and resources to support their children in the earliest years. That is why we are inviting a broad range of organisations to come together as part of a coalition to explore innovative ways to boost early language development and reading in the home. Following the successful home learning environment summit in November, we are developing a campaign that will be launched later this year.
It is clear that early education—from the age of two—has long-lasting benefits for children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield intimated in his speech. It helps to promote a child’s physical, emotional, cognitive and social development. However, as he suggested, evidence shows that, on average, disadvantaged families are less likely to make use of formal childcare provision than more advantaged families.
That is why, in September 2013, the Government introduced 15 hours of funded early education for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. Eligibility was expanded in September 2014 to include children from low-income working families, children with a disability or special educational need, and children who have left care. This early education programme for two-year-olds is popular with parents. In January 2018, local authorities reported that 72% of eligible parents nationally had taken up their entitlement to a place, which was up by 1% from January 2017, and take-up of the free entitlement for two-year-olds in Nottinghamshire is in line with the national average.
However, there is still more work to do, which is why we have commissioned our national delivery contractor, Childcare Works, to support local authorities to increase take-up of the offer for two-year-olds among disadvantaged parents, in particular. We have also commissioned Coram Family and Childcare to support the take-up of the free entitlements through their Parent Champions programme.
Of course, nursery schools also have an important part to play in ensuring excellent outcomes for disadvantaged children. I realise that there is uncertainty over the future of funding for maintained nursery schools. The current arrangements that protect maintained nursery schools’ funding provide nearly £60 million of additional funding a year, but they are due to end in March 2020, which is of course the end of the spending review period. This supplementary funding was a temporary arrangement, to ensure that maintained nursery schools did not miss out when we introduced the early years national funding formula, and we need to decide what should happen when that supplementary funding ends. As preparation for the forthcoming spending review, we are considering how best to handle transitional arrangements for a number of areas, including maintained nursery schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield talked about supporting children with special educational needs. The SEND reforms introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014, which came into effect in September 2014, brought in a new approach to supporting children and young people with SEND from birth to the age of 25 across education, health and social care. Our vision for children with SEND is the same as that for all children and young people: that they achieve well in their early years, at school and in college, that they find employment, that they lead happy and fulfilled lives, and that they exercise choice and control in their lives.
Those reforms represented the biggest change to SEND provision in a generation, and they are intended to improve the support available to children and young people with SEND by more effectively joining up services for children from birth to the age of 25 across education, health and social care, and by focusing on positive outcomes for education, employment, housing, health and community participation.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
On the point about SEND reforms, could the Minister shed some light on why children with SEND remain stubbornly over-represented in exclusion figures, and are six times more likely than their peers to be excluded? The system just is not working.
Ben Bradley
I thank the Minister for his comments so far. I think I mentioned in my speech the positive intentions of the 2014 Act, which has been broadly well received—including in the evidence that the Education Committee received—in terms of the reasons behind it and its aspirations. When he talks about working together across different sectors and bringing different services together, does he recognise the element that is often raised as the problem, which is the challenge that local authorities face in getting the health sector genuinely to engage and to fulfil its commitments in education, health and care plans and in relation to the 2014 Act? How can we work to get those health bodies involved and more actively engaged in supporting children within SEND provision?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those are the challenges that local authorities face, and we are continually working with them to improve the quality of the provision in their areas. As for SEND budgets, which I will come on to, we are concerned about the high needs budget for schools. That is why the Secretary of State recently announced an extra £250 million of funding—£125 million in this financial year and £125 million in the next financial year—to help local authorities with their high needs budget. I think that has been welcomed by local authorities.
Emma Hardy
I agree with hon. Members that the 2014 Act raised aspirations, but there were a few issues with it. First, it raised the entitlement to the age of 25, without any additional funding between the ages of 18 and 25 to meet that aspiration. It also hugely raised parents’ aspirations about what they are entitled to, without the ability to provide that entitlement. That is why parents are now taking local authorities to court, with huge, burgeoning costs in tribunal and lawyer fees. When we see the tip of the iceberg—those parents who have the social capital and knowledge to fight this—we know that there are thousands of parents underneath whose children’s needs are just not being met. I say to the Minister that this is more than just a small issue: a huge, fundamental rethink is needed in SEND.
Nick Gibb
Those issues, of course, are not new. They have existed for as long as I have taken a specialist interest in education; they were certainly key issues during the last Labour Government. One reason why we introduced the 2014 Act was to try to address the disputes that were taking place in tribunals, and to ensure much more co-ordination between the different services. We have increased funding for high needs education from £5 billion in 2013 to £6 billion this year, with the additional £250 million bringing the total up to £6.3 billion by next year.
We understand the pressures on high needs budgets, and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) is absolutely right that one of the reasons for those pressures is the extension of the entitlement to the age of 25 for children with special educational needs and disabilities. However, we do not apologise for that, because those young people need that support. [Interruption.]
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle has made many interventions. The Minister is trying to respond to her points, and all she is doing is chuntering.
Nick Gibb
I understand the hon. Lady’s passion about these issues, but she should not underestimate the passion that also exists on the Government Benches, or the action that we have taken since being in office to address those difficult issues and provide the funding to deal with them.
We understand that at the moment, local authorities feel under pressure in their high needs budget; the extra payment of £250 million aims to address that pressure, but we accept that it will not deal with the issue fully. We are trying to provide more capital for local authorities, to enable them to restructure their special educational needs provision. For example, as well as the age extension, which has been a pressure on local authorities’ budgets, there is the issue of the costs for some children with very severe educational needs. Independent school provision can be very expensive, and it is sometimes more cost-effective for local authorities to provide special educational needs schools or units of maintained schools in their own borough. We have allocated significant capital to enable that to happen.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said, much of the support work for pupils will take place within the school setting. For instance, when a school identifies a pupil who has special educational needs, they should take action to remove the barriers that stand in the way of that child’s education, and put effective special educational provision in place. That SEN support will often take the form of a cycle through which decisions and actions are revisited, refined and revised with a growing understanding of the pupil’s needs and of what supports the pupil in making good progress. That is known as a graduated approach.
One of the types of intervention that some schools choose in order to support pupils with social, emotional or behavioural needs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield has talked about in detail—I said to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle that I would come to this issue—is the use of nurture groups. As my hon. Friend has said, nurture groups offer an in-school, short-term, focused intervention strategy that is aimed at addressing barriers to education arising from behavioural, social or emotional difficulties, and doing so in a supportive manner. It is for individual schools to decide which interventions to offer, and the best and most cost-effective potential for providing support for an individual pupil’s needs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield mentioned, the Forest Town Primary School in his constituency is rated “good” by Ofsted. It is an example of a school that uses nurture groups to support its pupils. In its March 2017 inspection report, Ofsted praised that school’s positive culture and its determination that all its pupils succeed. Ofsted also highlighted Forest Town’s work to promote high levels of attendance, its timely adoption of interventions for different pupils, and its support for vulnerable pupils with complex needs. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the teachers at Forest Town and elsewhere for the important work that they do for those children.
All children have the right to a school environment that is safe, and conducive to effective teaching. Sometimes that will mean headteachers taking the difficult decision to exclude a pupil, and I fully support headteachers using exclusion where that is warranted. However, exclusion from school must not mean exclusion from education: when a child is excluded, suitable full-time education must be arranged from the sixth school day of exclusion. The Timpson review is considering how schools use exclusion and how that impacts on all pupils, but in particular why some groups of children, such as those with special needs, are more likely to be excluded from school.
Alternative provision is the system that is in place to educate those pupils who are unable to attend mainstream school. It is vital that those pupils who enter alternative provision following exclusion have access to a high-quality education, to help every child to achieve their potential. Local authorities or schools as commissioners must have regard to our statutory guidance, which states:
“Good alternative provision is that which appropriately meets the needs of pupils”
who require its use,
“and enables them to achieve good educational attainment on par with their mainstream peers.”
That guidance also sets out that the personal and social needs of pupils should be properly identified and met in order to help them overcome any barriers to attainment, and that AP should aim to improve pupil motivation, self-confidence, attendance, and engagement with education.
There are some excellent examples of AP settings that not only have high standards for behaviour, progress and attainment, but have strong therapeutic interventions in place to support pupils of primary school age. Ofsted’s report on the Hawkswood Primary pupil referral unit noted:
“Pupils understand the need to manage their own behaviour, and they are able to reflect on the choices they make. This is because boundaries are consistently applied and expectations are very high.”
One parent was moved to tell inspectors that the school had “made my son respectable.”
Another example is the Family School, an AP free school that opened in September 2014. Its ethos is built around supporting pupils to cultivate a productive lifestyle, personal resilience, and the values required to become responsible members of society. An innovative aspect of that programme is that it requires a parent or significant adult family member to participate in the classroom with their child. The focus is on families helping themselves and each other to create the conditions and changes necessary, so that children can resolve their problems and be better equipped to return to school, which I know is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is concerned about.
In both the schools that I have cited, a high proportion of pupils are successfully reintegrated into mainstream schools. We are determined to ensure that every AP setting is as good as the good examples that I have cited, and that their best practice is shared. As I set out in the AP vision document that we published last March, we want to make sure that the right children are placed in the right AP, and that they receive a high-quality education and achieve meaningful outcomes after leaving alternative provision. That is supported by a £4 million innovation fund, which includes projects that have a focus on reintegration.
In closing, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and other hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate that this Government are determined to do all that we can to support young people in achieving their potential, whether by providing continued support for early years services, supporting mental health services, reforming the special educational needs system or providing highly effective alternative provision where necessary.
Ben Bradley
I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly those from the Education Committee. They show a clear passion for the subject and for supporting young people. That is particularly so in the case of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who spoke with her usual passion for supporting the most vulnerable people in our society.
I was pleased to hear the Minister’s response, which made it clear that supporting disadvantaged people and a commitment to social mobility are key priorities for Government. He highlighted investment in many different areas, which is welcome. I would like to see that investment going directly to schools, and for schools to be given the ability to make independent decisions more often about personalised interventions for our children. I recognise the positive aspirations of the SEND reforms that the Minister talked about and the 2014 Act, and I look forward to the outcomes of the Timpson review.
I also thank the Minister for his kind words about Forest Town Primary School, which I am sure will make those there very happy. It is an excellent provision and there are a number of such schools across my constituency. I hope we can meet the Minister’s expectations with positive alternative provision examples. They should be encouraged, matched and talked about across the rest of the country.
I recognise the work that the Minister does behind the scenes making the case for education with the Treasury in terms of the forthcoming spending review. That is difficult in the current climate, and I hope he continues to make that case. If I can help him in any way with making the case for education’s being a huge priority for the rest of this Parliament, I certainly will. It would be very welcome. I thank everyone for their contributions. In particular, I thank the Minister for his time and you, Sir Christopher. It has been a pleasure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered nurture and alternative provision in primary schools.
Written Statements
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competition and Markets Authority: Contingencies Fund Advance
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has sought a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £17,049,000 to ensure the CMA’s relocation to new offices remains on schedule.
The CMA will only receive its voted funding for this project at the supplementary estimate, and consequently may only draw the related cash from the Consolidated Fund after the Supply and Appropriation Act has received Royal Assent in March 2019. This requirement has arisen because the 2018-19 expenditure for the construction works at the CMA’s new offices is predominantly falling in the last quarter of this financial year.
The cash advance will ensure the project stays on track and on budget and ensure that the CMA also meets its operational needs.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £2,793,000 and capital of £14,256,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the CMA. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £17,049,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS1328]
Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
In a written statement on 22 March 2018 [HCWS579], I informed Parliament that the Government intended to amend the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 to enable the Government’s agreement with Pool Re, the terrorism reinsurer, to be expanded to include business interruption losses that are not contingent on damage to commercial property. This was achieved with Royal Assent of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act on 12 February 2019. This demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that businesses can continue to secure insurance against the financial costs of terror attacks, and that Pool Re can maintain its position as an example world-leading partnership between Government and the insurance sector.
[HCWS1329]
Grand Committee
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee has considered the draft Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister continues, may I enter a protest at the fact that this discussion is taking place at all while the House debates the very issues of Brexit that we are supposed to be debating.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I wish to make the point that it is totally unsatisfactory that we should be debating these no-deal regulations at the same time as the House is debating Brexit.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 18 December 2018. They are part of the Government’s programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period, there continues to be a functioning statute book. Securing a deal with the EU remains the Government’s top priority, but it is appropriate to accelerate no-deal preparations to ensure that the country is prepared for every eventuality. This is the responsible thing to do. To confirm, the regulations would come into force in March only in the event that there is no deal and no implementation period. They are made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix legal deficiencies in retained EU law. They are needed to reflect that the UK will no longer be an EU member state after exit day.
I trust noble Lords will allow me to provide a brief overview of how the regime works at present. The Construction Products Regulation—the CPR—is directly applicable in all EU member states. It seeks to remove technical barriers to the trade of construction products. It does this by harmonising the methods of assessment and testing, the means of declaring the performance, and the system of conformity assessment of construction products. Through this, the CPR seeks to ensure that reliable information is available to professionals, public authorities, and consumers, so that they can compare the performance of products from different manufacturers. I should make it clear that the CPR does not harmonise national building regulations across the EU. Individual member states remain responsible for safety, environmental, energy and other requirements applicable to construction works. The CPR applies UK-wide, and the devolved Administrations have been kept informed throughout the process of developing this approach and are content with it.
Moving on to how the CPR works in practice, where a harmonised standard has been adopted, the CPR places obligations on manufacturers, distributors and importers of that product. This includes that the product must have a declaration of performance and be CE-marked—that is, marked with the letters “CE”. The CPR will form part of the UK’s legal system as retained EU law when we leave the European Union. Without the amendments made by the regulations, the requirements of the CPR would cease to apply in the United Kingdom.
The general policy is to keep the same requirements but to convert them into a UK regime. This instrument will ensure that the same standards apply immediately after exit day as applied immediately before the UK left the EU. The key requirements of the regime will not change. The effect of these regulations can be considered in five parts.
First, on standards, existing European product standards will be preserved in the UK. Immediately following exit day, the same requirements will apply as were in place the day before. The standards that businesses must meet will therefore be unchanged. Thereafter, new UK standards will be designated by the Secretary of State. Standards have their own review cycles, typically of five years. The consideration of new standards will be supported by expert advice from the British Standards Institution and consultation with wider industry. Those standards are now, and will continue to be, mandatory.
The second area is about conformity assessment and the new UK mark. This element relates to where third-party conformity assessment is required. Existing UK conformity assessment bodies will be granted the new status of UK-approved bodies under these regulations. Where a UK-approved body undertakes the third-party conformity assessment required under the relevant UK standard, the product must be affixed with the new UK mark. The UK mark is being established under separate legislation and details of the new mark were published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at the start of this month.
The third area is the continuity approach. Alongside the domestic arrangements I have just outlined, for an initial period after exit day we will continue to accept products that comply with the European CPR regime. This will mean that products which meet requirements under the European CPR can continue to be placed on the UK market without the need for re-testing or additional marking. As I have mentioned, all European and UK standards will be the same immediately after we leave the European Union. This approach is necessary to ensure that goods continue to have access to the United Kingdom market, and to help minimise disruption for businesses and consumers.
The intention is that these arrangements will be time-limited. We will ensure that businesses are given sufficient notice in advance of this period coming to an end. I can confirm, however, that ending the recognition of CE-marked products would require further legislation by affirmative resolution. Such legislation would be preceded by a period of consultation with industry.
The fourth and penultimate area concerns technical assessment where product marking is not compulsory. This relates to products not covered by a mandatory UK-designated standard. In some instances, it is helpful to the manufacturer to affix a marking to these products, although there is no legal requirement to do so. Therefore, in the same way as is the case under the current regime, there will be an optional route available to enable products to be UK-marked. That will continue.
Fifthly, these regulations give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to enable the UK to make technical updates to the CPR framework. This is simply a case of the functions currently resting with the European Commission passing to the United Kingdom. These functions enable the Commission to make delegated and implementing Acts limited to specific areas, as set out in the CPR. We are making no changes to the scope of these powers. To be clear, this is simply a case of the existing functions passing from the EU to the UK. This is necessary to ensure that the UK’s CPR regime can respond to technical progress and new or emerging issues. Parliament will be able to scrutinise any new measures and this provides a similar level of oversight as exists under the EU’s regime currently.
I also note that these regulations make a number of technical fixes to correct deficiencies in the market surveillance regime arising from EU exit. This regime is provided for under domestic legislation. These technical amendments will ensure that the enforcement regime can continue to work in the same way as now.
At this point, I confirm that the UK’s ability to take action against products that do not comply with their declared performance—or are illegally on the market—is unaffected by these regulations.
To summarise, I hope the Committee agrees that these regulations are necessary. They serve a specific purpose: to ensure continuity of the regime in the event of a no-deal scenario, providing certainty if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I stress that this is not the Government’s intended outcome. These draft regulations have been considered by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; no concerns were raised by either.
To conclude, this instrument is necessary to ensure that the Construction Products Regulation continues to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or implementation period. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the Minister was not his normal courteous self in declining to give way at the beginning. The reason he was not—indeed the reason Ministers are increasingly discourteous and disrespectful to the Grand Committee and the House on these matters—is of course that they are deeply frazzled by what is going on. They are having to rush through huge numbers of regulations in preparation for a totally unacceptable no-deal scenario, and it is therefore in their interests, as they see it, to suppress debate. What we have today is a classic instance of that.
I think the Minister would accept that these are important issues; the whole future of product standards and regulations is a vital issue for the future of the country and goes to the heart of our whole system of trade. At the same time as we are supposed to be debating this string of statutory instruments in the Grand Committee, the House itself is debating the whole state of the Brexit negotiations. That may account for the fact that there is almost nobody in the Grand Committee, because it is difficult for most of us to divide ourselves in two and be in two places at once.
I am very surprised that the usual channels agreed to the debate taking place in the Grand Committee today. I certainly would not have done if I was responsible for these matters, because it seems straightforwardly unacceptable that the Grand Committee should be discussing exactly the same matters that are being discussed in the Chamber. I hope the Minister might take back to the Chief Whip the concerns being expressed about these issues being debated here at the same time as the House is debating them. I see that one of my noble friends has come in, who is in the Opposition Whips’ Office; perhaps I may convey to the Opposition Chief Whip through him that it is totally unacceptable for the House to be debating statutory instruments in the Grand Committee on the same subject as is being debated in the Chamber. For that reason, I will certainly decline to express consent to this Motion at the end of the debate, and the House will need to debate this matter again fully when it goes to the Chamber, on the grounds that many noble Lords have not had an opportunity either to hear the debate or to participate in it.
On the substance of the issue, the status quo on exit is, as the Minister said, unchanged. Indeed, my understanding—perhaps he could confirm this in his reply—is that it is unchanged in all respects. The big issue is what happens to divergence thereafter. On that, he will say that it is a matter for government and Parliament thereafter, and this needs to be a dynamic situation. But—this goes to the whole issue of Brexit itself—if there is to be no divergence whatever and we are to continue to mimic the standards set for products in the EU, what on earth was the point of Brexit in the first place? Why are we going through this gruesome process, taking back control only to decline to exercise it because the best way of serving our industries and our economy is to continue to have the same product standards as the EU? However, if we diverge, which would largely be a matter of ideology, it would cause big problems of its own through the impact on the economy.
I note that Kit Malthouse, the Minister in the House of Commons, when dealing with exactly this issue, was unable to give any assurances, and quite rightly so. He said:
“I cannot speak for future Ministers, Secretaries of State or indeed Governments, who might decide to do something other”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee 4/2/19; col. 10.]
That is completely true—of course he cannot speak for them. However, that goes to the whole point that no assurances can be given whatever that we will not in due course diverge—we may have a capricious Minister, for example. The Minister himself raised in his remarks the issue of Grenfell, aluminium product standards and building standards. That goes to the heart of the issue. What will happen quite quickly is that, perhaps because of domestic circumstances, developments or crises, and maybe not entirely wisely, we will decide quite rapidly to set and apply new product standards, different from those of the EU, which lead progressively —because this is an accretive process—to our divergence from European standards. The impact of that over time —maybe not each individual change but their cumulative effect—will be seriously to disadvantage our industries and businesses, and maybe our consumers, as standards diverge over time.
I know that the Minister will be unable to say anything other than “Nothing is changing on exit day” and “It is not our intention by these regulations to bring about any divergence”, but I think he will accept, as did his colleague in the House of Commons, that the whole purpose of the regulations—the whole purpose of Brexit—is to make such divergence possible. That divergence over time—perhaps not in each specific case, but over time—could be deeply damaging to our industries and consumers. That goes to the heart of the problems not only with a no-deal Brexit but with any Brexit at all.
However, as I will be making the same speech in the Chamber in due course, when other Members will be able to take part, because they are now debating the wider issue of whether we should be doing Brexit, I shall not elaborate any further.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I sympathise with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the volume of statutory instruments that we have to consider, the lack of time to consider them and, thereby, the lack of time to do justice to them. I shall, nevertheless, comment on the statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has raised a number of crucial issues on the possibility of divergence to which we need to be alert.
As the Minister said, the statutory instrument is to come into force only if there is a no-deal outcome on 29 March. It aims to preserve the current outcomes—that is, properly licensed and tested construction products, tradeable without barriers across all 28 EU countries, as far as possible. However, the only one it can actually guarantee, it does: that any approved EU kitemarked products will continue to be recognised as compliant under UK law.
It gives the Secretary of State the power to set new UK standards for products in future, either those that are purely UK-tested or by simply adopting future EU standards. Given that up to a quarter of all components and materials used in construction are imported from the EU, it is clearly hugely in the interests of the UK industry to maintain common standards, and it is unlikely that it would ever welcome a divergence from whatever was the current EU standard. In practice, any UK manufacturer wanting a test certificate for a new product would want it to comply with the EU version of the testing and carry a kitemark, so that it was accepted across the EU and the UK thereafter, whereas there is no automatic right for our tests to be accepted across the Channel, limiting our export potential. Inevitably, the Government will have to set up a UK system, but in real life nobody will want to use it. It is therefore wrong to say that there is no impact and so no need for an impact assessment, although that is the conclusion the Government seem to have reached.
It is not that there are deficiencies in the drafting of the statutory instrument; it is yet another shocking example of the complete waste of time that all this work on no deal is producing—for the Government, for Parliament and for the industry. If, by any chance, there was no deal, the additional cost of setting up a system parallel to the EU which practically no one would ever volunteer to use is certainly not a minor matter. I hope that when he responds, the Minister will comment on that and, I hope, express his agreement with that conclusion.
I raise one further issue, which relates to the responsibility for enforcement before and after. It will lie with trading standards, mostly decimated by funding cuts. What estimate have the Government made of the increased workload for trading standards as a consequence of the introduction of the proposed new regime?
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with many of the points made by preceding speakers about this process and this instrument as an example of the secondary legislation on which we are having to spend so much time.
In the light of the Grenfell disaster, the subject of these regulations assumes greater importance than might otherwise have been the case. It is therefore even more unsatisfactory that no impact assessment has been published. What assurances can the Minister give that, in the absence of a deal, there will continue to be comparisons for industry and the public as to the performance and safety of products from other countries? Will the Government ensure that EU regulations are constantly kept under review and that steps will be taken to ensure that our standards keep pace with increased safety considerations applied within the EU? In the absence of an impact assessment, has there been any conclusion on the potential cost to businesses as a result of the change? The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made that point.
What will be the process for designating standards under the new regime? Will parliamentary scrutiny of such new or amended standards take place? If so, will that happen under the “made affirmative” procedure? What form of consultation will be applied? In particular, will the British Standards Institution remain a member of the European Committee for Standardization? The Explanatory Memorandum declares:
“Existing European harmonised standards will become UK ‘designated standards’”,
and will be “identical”. Is that to be a permanent position? If not, what timescale is anticipated within which they may be reviewed or changed? What cognisance will be taken of any changes in the EU standards during that period, and by what methods?
Finally, is it to be a requirement that manufacturers must affix a UK mark to products? If so, to what extent have the Government received assurances that such a mark will suffice to satisfy buyers in the European Union or elsewhere?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to these undoubtedly important regulations; indeed, I do not deny that they are important. Obviously, I am not responsible for the usual channels and the timetabling of matters in the House and the Moses Room. I firmly believe that the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has probably been picked up elsewhere so I will leave others to deal with that matter. I apologise if he thought I was being discourteous but I do not think he asked me to give way, which is perhaps why I did not. However, I will deal with his points.
I can confirm that the regulations will not change the law, except mutatis mutandis, in that we are coming out of the EU so some of the terminology is different. The regulations seek to preserve the existing position on exit day, which is why there is no impact assessment. Bear in mind that both scrutiny committees have not commented on the lack of an impact assessment; there will be no impact because the law on exit day will remain exactly the same because of the regulations. To pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—I think I covered this in my opening speech but perhaps not at sufficient length or with sufficient clarity—any departure from existing standards will require new legislation through the “made affirmative” procedure, on which consultation will be necessary. At the moment, the normal review period for standards is a five-year cycle. I am not saying that this will always necessarily be the case, but any reason to depart from it would have to be strong.
The second general point made by noble Lords concerns the likelihood of our suddenly diverging, or diverging at all, if it is inappropriate for British industry and if there is no great clamour from the British public. It is hard to see why this would be done; indeed, it would not make sense. We should credit our legislators and builders—people with more common sense. There would be no reason to diverge just for the sake of it, particularly given the necessity of the consultation I mentioned. It is hard to see how that would become a priority in any way or something that anybody would want to do.
I take issue slightly with another theme that seemed to come through in noble Lords’ remarks: that the regulations are about safety. Essentially, they are not. They are about standardisation. We have a separate domestic safety regime, as one can see from the Hackitt review and the Grenfell disaster. This has not emanated from Europe; by and large, Europe has not been the focus of the Grenfell inquiry or the response to it, nor of the Hackitt review. This is domestic. I am not denying the importance of these regulations, but essentially they are about standardisation and supply chains so that, for example, bricks and window frames are of a standard size. They are not largely about safety, so I want to keep the focus where it properly belongs. That is the point. That is the reason for the lack of an impact assessment and, as I said, one of the committees would have picked it up if we were in breach of proper procedures. As noble Lords will know, they are very effective committees.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about trading standards and additional burdens. He will know that there is already an existing provision that new burdens have to be properly financed. We would expect to consult on that with the LGA and interested parties. If there are new burdens to be imposed, that would be a necessary consequence.
With those comments, and with the certain knowledge this will be brought up again in the Chamber, I commend these regulations.
Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, a draft of these regulations was laid before this House on 14 January. They are an enabling element in the processes for implementing the locally led proposal to replace the five existing Buckinghamshire councils with a new single unitary council. If approved by Parliament and made, the regulations will allow orders to be made under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to implement the Buckinghamshire proposal. In short, this is the first of two steps for these proposals.
Specifically, the regulations provide that Part 1 of the 2007 Act is varied in relation to Buckinghamshire so that: proposals may be made for the purposes of the 2007 Act by any principal authority in Buckinghamshire on its own initiative; any unitary proposal received by the Secretary of State from Buckinghamshire councils, including pre-existing proposals from before the regulations are made, may be implemented with or without modification by order; and the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the councils and other persons affected by the proposal does not apply, reflecting the extensive consultation undertaken by the county council and the subsequent period for representations.
The regulations would expire at the end of March 2021 to allow sufficient time for all necessary orders under the 2007 Act to be made, to give full effect to the proposal. For regulations made on or before 31 March 2019, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 requires at least one of the councils to give its consent to the making of the regulations, if the regulations are to be made. Buckinghamshire County Council has given its unconditional consent to the making of these regulations.
Alongside these regulations, in addition to the usual Explanatory Memorandum, we have also laid a report explaining the effect of the regulations and why the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make them, as required by Section 15 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. The report also provides contextual information about the regulations.
Regarding the context, as that report explains, the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make these regulations which provide for Part 1 of the 2007 Act to be varied in its application to Buckinghamshire, to reflect the initiative of Buckinghamshire County Council to make a proposal for structural change without an invitation having been received from the Secretary of State.
The context to this proposal is that there is wide consensus that the current local government arrangements in Buckinghamshire are unsustainable and inappropriate. In September 2016, the county council submitted a proposal for a new single unitary council. In January 2017, the four district councils submitted a proposal for two unitary councils. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor evaluated these proposals against the Government’s criteria. They concluded that both proposals met the criteria about a good deal of local support. The over 3,000 representations we received on this matter showed overwhelming support for change, with 87% of all representations supporting unitarisation in principle, 35% of all representations supporting a single unitary council, and 47% supporting the two-unitary proposal.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a long-term resident of Buckinghamshire, although I am not directly involved in any of the bodies listed by the Minister. I have been aware of the debates and discussions that have been ongoing in Buckinghamshire for some time, and am slightly surprised that I am alone in this place as anybody who has direct knowledge of what is happening there. The House is full of Buckinghamshire residents, I am happy to say, many of whom serve in the Government, and I would have thought that one or two of them might have been present to represent their views on this interesting proposition.
If I follow the Minister correctly, there are three columns under which the Government intend to make their decision—first and primarily on whether there is voter engagement and confidence in sufficient support across the population of Buckinghamshire. That is, whether the bodies representative of activity in that county—the LEPs and various other bodies mentioned by the Minister—have supported the issues, particularly those directly funded by and operated through one or more of the councils. There is this rather wonderful phrase “credible geography”, which supports the decisions that are likely to be made.
The Minister has done a very fair job in trying to represent the confusion in this process. He was right to point out—it is worth looking at the Explanatory Memorandum in some detail on this—that there is a great deal of support for unitarisation in Buckinghamshire. I do not dispute that, but there is rather less agreement on what form it should take. He mentioned that the district councils were primarily concerned about there being two unitary councils in Buckinghamshire. I am delighted to see that another resident of that county, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, has emerged from the dark recesses of your Lordships’ House. He will no doubt support me later—or he may not.
The variety of responses took the same sort of approach—that 87% of representations support unitarisation in principle—but the options were split again. Although it saw more support for single unitary operations, the public sector provider similarly highlights a lot of the difficulties that will arise when unitarisation takes place. On this first leg, I wonder whether there will be any opportunity to reflect further on this. Yes, all the right processes have been gone through, but the results are so disparate in how they line up to solutions that it is difficult to see how the Government can make the decision on the basis of that set of responses.
The second point concerns the process of employment in other involved bodies. I have touched on this slightly in my response to the Government’s first column. The business community—various issues are raised in paragraphs 10.9, 10.10 and 10.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum on this—is not universally in favour of a single unitary structure. I wonder how the Government have drawn that conclusion.
My final point is on the credible geography. The dog that has not barked in this debate is the question of Milton Keynes. In northern Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes is a burgeoning separate institution with its own governance and practice; with no real logic in a longer-term perspective, it is constantly differentiated from the rest of Buckinghamshire. The town is growing. Under the circumstances in which it was set up, it is an efficient and well-run operation. It has plans for expansion, and has been picked out on many occasions by the Government for sustainable development in the creation of more houses and better communications, particularly as a link on the corridor between Oxford and Cambridge. Despite that, it is completely ignored in this reorganised structure. Would the Minister like to comment on that?
It seems extraordinary that, with such focus on its future growth, such a concentration of people and economic activity is ignored in the structure of the county in which it operates. As for credible geography, it seems absurd to have a county that is long and thin. Journeys from north to south in Buckinghamshire are extraordinarily difficult; I made one this morning and it took me almost an hour and a half to get to the north of the county from where I live in the south. We are talking about ignoring one of the biggest economic operators within it. One need only look at a map with an uncritical eye to see that the south of the county points more towards Windsor and the London fringes. All the communication lines that people use for commuting—it is a commuter area—are centred on and work into the area. Yet the north looks to the Midlands and gets around Milton Keynes in a way that is antipathetic to the way that local government structures will be working.
The Government have obviously decided that they want to take this forward. As the Minister said, there will be a chance to discuss the draft before a final decision is made; perhaps that will be the more appropriate moment at which to look at it. But will there be another opportunity, between now and when this appears in the Chamber, for him to reflect on whether other issues need to be brought into this equation? Is he confident that the earlier pillars of voter engagement and user experience have not been slightly undervalued in the discussions so far, particularly in light of the credible geography issue?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it is fairly clear that there are two views in Buckinghamshire on how to establish a unitary structure. It is not for me to support one view or another; that is a matter for the people of Buckinghamshire.
The debate we are about to have will be helpful, but I would first like to pick up a comment made by the Minister when introducing the proposal. It relates to the population figure that should apply for a unitary council. As I recall, he said that if there were two, one would have a population of only 188,000, whereas, normally, a unitary council would be over 300,000. I can think of quite a number of unitary councils that are well under 300,000 and hover around the 180,000 to 200,000 mark. Will he comment on that? Is a new government standard being applied? There is a certain logic to it: 188,000 is a lot of people and may well be deemed a sufficient number.
I noted two things in the Explanatory Memorandum. One is a comment in paragraph 10.11 by the commissioner for children’s services in Buckinghamshire, who,
“indicated a preference for a single unitary as opposed to two unitary councils; and was strongly opposed to ‘any … [local government reorganisation] proposal which would break-up (disaggregate) the existing children’s services structures in Buckinghamshire’”.
That is clearly a professional view of the best structure for that area. There may well be other similar professional views. If so, can the Minister draw our attention to them? We have comments from a number of public services and businesses, but there will be others beyond those.
I also have a concern about the comments made by councillors from town and parish councils. They are,
“particularly concerned about their capacity to take on additional devolved activity in a single unitary arrangement”.
This matters greatly. One thing we have learned from unitarisation in other parts of England is that, when it happens, you need strong town and parish councils to undertake the work that inevitably is devolved from the single unitary authority. These things are not directly to do with me or your Lordships’ House, but, when talking with the town and parish councils in Buckinghamshire, I hope the Government will listen very carefully to all that is said and respond in a way that assists those councillors to do their job in the future.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a local authority with a population of 280,000. I am also an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We are in the paradoxical position of passing regulations which effectively bypass the wishes of four district councils in Buckinghamshire and of the 47% of respondents to the consultation on the proposal to abolish these councils and merge them with the county council. As we have heard, they voted for two unitary authorities to be created from the four districts. Slough, which is geographically in Buckinghamshire, is already a unitary authority, and so is Milton Keynes. Their views were backed by the chair of the District Councils’ Network, who blamed the decision on what he described as “ill-conceived legislation”; namely, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act. This includes a sunset clause expiring—curiously enough—in March, which permits the Secretary of State to fast-track changes with the consent of only one local authority; in this case, the county council.
Even the Secretary of State, who bears the uncannily appropriate name of Brokenshire, acknowledges the concern that a single unitary authority might weaken democratic engagement at the most local level. Incidentally, he said he would consult on whether this year’s local elections should be delayed to avoid councillors being elected for only one year. Can the Minister say what has been decided in respect of this matter?
The public consultation produced only a 35% response in favour of the proposals. How can the Government justify proceeding with such a slender measure of support? I understand that Chiltern and Wycombe District Councils—neither of them, I regret to say, yet Labour-controlled—wrote to the Secretary of State with notice of intention to institute a legal challenge. Joined by South Bucks, they are now seeking judicial review. Can the Minister indicate when the case is likely to be heard? Would it not be more seemly to defer any decision on the regulations until the legal proceedings are concluded?
In the debate on the draft regulations in the Third Delegated Legislation Committee, Dame Cheryl Gillan, the Member of Parliament for Chesham and Amersham, launched a blistering attack on the proposals. Among much else, she quoted the previous Under-Secretary of State, James Wharton, who, during the passage of the then Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, stated that it was the Government’s intention to build consensus, saying:
“We are not going to impose change on areas that do not want it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/15; col.772.]
Given that four of the five authorities involved—that is all the district councils affected—oppose the proposals, how can the Government square their decision with that emphatic commitment? In addition to the unanimous view of the district councils, 70% of parish councils in the area support the proposal for two unitary authorities, as do local businesses and other stakeholders.
Dame Cheryl also drew attention to the Government’s effective imposition of the county council leader as the initial leader of the new authority, with a majority of county councillors on the executive and the potential appointment of the county chief executive as “implementation leader”. This looks uncannily like a county council takeover—a sort of Amersham Anschluss.
In his reply to the debate in the Commons, Minister Rishi Sunak said:
“It is time for a fresh start for Buckinghamshire. It is time for people to forget about what has happened in the past, leave aside the tags of district and county, and come together to work for the benefit of residents”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/19; col. 18.]
This is all very well, but the people are being given no voice and no vote on the issue.
This is yet another example of government practice since 2010. Then, some councils were compelled to hold ballots on whether to move to elected mayors. Although many, including Newcastle, voted not to do so, the Government’s reaction over time was to require elected mayors as a condition of the establishment of combined authorities. Their contempt for local government was further exemplified by the abolition of regional offices of government—originally established by an earlier Conservative Administration—which had proved a successful way of building constructive relationships between the two tiers of government.
I trust that the Minister will not emulate his colleague in the Commons, who concluded the debate on the regulations by declaring that he was,
“confident that, before too long, we will have a happy resolution to all outstanding matters, and that the people of Buckinghamshire can look forward to a bright future”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/19; col. 18.]
This is the utterance of a political Candide, believing that all is for the best in the best of all possible local government worlds.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the proposals for unitarisation in Buckinghamshire. I remind noble Lords that a locally led proposal is the background to this—as it should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, rightly said. The provisions will run out on 31 March this year, when we will revert to the previous procedures and to legislation brought in under Tony Blair, if I am not mistaken. That would require an invitation from the Secretary of State to amend local government procedures, unless there is unanimity among local authorities, in which case it would not be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made a point about Milton Keynes. He is right that it is a dog that has not barked and was not part of the locally led proposal. I recognise that Milton Keynes is significant in that area but it was not part of the process. He also made a point about viable geography and the size of a unitary authority. I think this issue has been addressed; indeed, my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government dealt with this issue in the other place and followed it up with a letter that talked about the process. I will make sure that the relevant letter is sent to noble Lords.
Originally, we imagined a population range of between 400,000 and 600,000 people, but subsequently found that this was too high. I am not saying that no ranges are above that figure, but the norm is somewhere around the 300,000 mark I referred to. It is not a hard-and-fast rule, but it is a guiding principle. The size has an effect on the nature and the split of services; indeed, the children’s commissioner gave the view that one unitary authority would be more beneficial than two. That view was reflected in the consultation—not exclusively, I accept, but getting 100% support for proposals is always pretty unlikely in a consultation. There was certainly discontent from the authorities, all of which were not content with the status quo. We have not had representations from local parties saying that the proposals are untenable.
The choice facing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was between progressing with one unitary authority for the four district authorities or with two. Obviously, a judgment of Solomon must be made. With respect, all the authorities are Conservative-led, so there can be no idea of this move being for political gain; that was not suggested but I want to make the point. The Minister acted in this way after looking at the viable geography and representations made, and trying to work out which proposal presented the best option for local government in the area. He thought that a single unitary authority was that best option.
I do not pretend that this will please everyone; clearly it will not. For example, it will not please the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which I suggest will not change after I finish speaking and after the regulations have, I hope, been agreed to. As I say, we must look at the considerations I presented, the provision of services and the size of the entity. All are important but there was certainly little or no support for the status quo: 87% of people felt that the status quo was not viable, so the suggestion that this will upset everybody in the area is somewhat far-fetched. The noble Lord also mentioned the deferral of elections. They are being deferred for a year, in line with what all the authorities—district and county councils—asked for.
If I have missed any other points made by noble Lords, as I almost certainly have, I will pick up on them in a letter. Echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, noble Lords will get another bite of the cherry when the order comes forward and we look at some of its provisions in more detail. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Given that the Minister welcomed the idea of further debate on the order, is he prepared to meet me and other colleagues from the area to exchange views on some of the deeper issues raised by this?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
It is always a pleasure to meet the noble Lord. I am very happy to do that, but without any promise that it will make any difference.
Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Amendment and Power to Modify) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Amendment and Power to Modify) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, this draft statutory instrument ensures that the UK’s regulatory regime for the geological storage of carbon dioxide continues to function when the UK leaves the EU. This will be required in the event that the UK leaves with no deal, but may also be required in a negotiated outcome.
There is broad consensus that carbon capture, usage and storage—CCUS—is vital to keeping temperatures below 2 degrees and at least cost. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, estimates that, globally, it could be almost 140% more expensive to meet the target of 2 degrees without CCUS; that equates to an additional $12 trillion. That is why this Government are committed to progressing CCUS, which has the potential to support meeting our 2050 climate reduction target and forms an important part of our industrial strategy, supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
A functional regime for the storage of carbon dioxide is essential for enabling the deployment of CCUS across the UK. In 2009, the EU introduced the CCS directive, which established a legal framework for the environmentally safe geological storage of carbon dioxide. It covers all carbon dioxide storage in geological formations in the EU for the entire lifetime of the storage sites. The UK implemented these requirements through the Energy Act 2008 and subsequent regulations. This SI ensures that the UK’s regulatory regime for the geological storage of carbon dioxide will continue to function in an environmentally safe way when we leave the EU.
The purpose of this instrument is threefold. First, it corrects references to the UK as a member state and removes obligations to consult with the EU Commission during the licensing and permit process. This will ensure that the UK continues to be able to issue licences and permits to future CCUS projects, and that licences already issued remain fully functional.
Secondly, it will give a new power allowing the Secretary of State to update technical requirements relating to storage site characterisation and monitoring in the light of technical or scientific progress. This is an equivalent to that held by the EU Commission under the CCS directive. I stress that this power can be used only to reflect technical and scientific progress and for no other purposes. It has similar safeguards to the current EU Commission power, ensuring that its use cannot adversely affect the standard of monitoring or level of safety of the carbon dioxide storage sites. Thirdly, this instrument will ensure that there continues to be robust monitoring and safety standards for carbon dioxide stores consistent with the current legislation.
To varying degrees, these amendments make provision in respect of devolved matters, for which we have sought and received formal consent from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In developing this instrument, we also consulted the Oil and Gas Authority as the licensing and permitting body.
These amendments will not have any adverse impacts or place any additional burdens on CCUS projects, including, for example, the Acorn project in north-east Scotland, which was recently awarded a carbon dioxide storage licence by the OGA. The effect of all these changes will be to ensure that the UK continues to have an effective, robust and safe regulatory regime for storing carbon dioxide, a vital component of supporting the progress of CCUS in the UK.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, when I read this, particularly the Explanatory Memorandum, I started to feel it was an exercise in irony. Despite all the urgency of the potential Brexit, here we have a situation where it will probably be necessary to pass this legislation by 29 March 2029, given the current government decarbonisation strategy.
In 2017, as the Minister will probably remember, the Public Accounts Committee in the other place pointed out that the Government had wasted some £168 million on CCS projects—including £100 million on the one cancelled by George Osborne in the 2015 Budget—with no progress whatever.
Having said that, I agree with Claire Perry, the Minister responsible for the clean growth strategy. In the CCUS Cost Challenge Taskforce report, she said that,
“we want to have the option to deploy CCUS at scale during the 2030s”—
as long as the pricing is right.
The Minister mentioned the Acorn project. I agree that there may be some necessity to do this, but it reflects the rather tragic trajectory of government action. The fact that this core part of the clean growth strategy will not be implemented until the 2030s is most unfortunate.
The clean growth strategy called for a new CCS council—or CCUS as it is called nowadays. Has that been established and is it operating now?
As the Minister knows, I am interested in areas of international agreement, such as the Ospar Convention, which prevents the deposit of waste in marine areas of the north-east Atlantic. I seem to recall that the Government got an allowance through the Ospar Convention process for CCUS—it is seen as disposal of waste at sea, even though it is under the sea—potentially in the North Sea. The UK and the European Union are signatories of this. I am interested to understand whether the UK itself has enough permits under the convention, or a derogation in our own right to be able to continue this, rather than it being done in agreement with the European Union, with it as the signatory. Will we need any treaty revisions or further derogations from the Ospar Convention to move this forward once we are out of the European Union?
In a way, I am glad that BEIS has given this some priority—perhaps it is a sign of movement at last. I look forward to seeing those future plans for CCUS. We do of course have Drax, but I do not think it requires any geological resolution of storage, which this SI is all about.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this statutory instrument. I have just one question. He said that there has been consultation with only the Oil and Gas Authority, which presumably is the regulator in this instance. Page 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that it will apply to,
“activities that are undertaken by small businesses”.
Was a conscious decision taken not to consult widely with the industry, and, if so, what was the reason for that? Obviously the regulator will have a view, but those who work in the industry might have an alternative view.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I am standing in for my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who cannot be with us this afternoon. This is another of the no-deal Brexit SIs, which would be completely unnecessary if the Government were to do the right thing: agree with Labour and others and rule out the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. If the Government were to do that, this House and the other place could spend more time dealing with far more important and relevant issues, and save the Civil Service, the ministerial Opposition and industry time and money—a simple solution.
This SI has already been through the other place, where it was passed in 10 or 11 minutes, so we are giving it a little more scrutiny in this House than in the other place. I note Dr Whitehead’s comments and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. On carbon capture itself, Dr Whitehead’s said that,
“it would be rather nice if we had some carbon capture and storage to put into those regulations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/19; col. 5.]
I have a couple of questions to add to the others asked by noble Lords. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, the Explanatory Memorandum details that BEIS engaged with the Oil and Gas Authority and the devolved Administrations. Could the Minister enlighten us as to the response from the authority and the Administrations?
The Government have stated that no specific monitoring arrangements are needed for this. Can the Minister detail whether the Government envisage any situation where the instrument will need to be looked at again? On the Minister’s second point, on changes to technical or scientific specifications, will there be any parliamentary scrutiny or oversight, or do those changes sit in the hands of the department and the Minister?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am again grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. On the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, I am not aware that there will be any further parliamentary oversight of this order once it has gone through. Of course, as I said in my opening remarks, we are clear that this deals with a no-deal situation, but it might possibly also be necessary in the event of a deal. We have to see what the deal is, and then see what precisely is needed. The important thing at this stage is to provide a degree of certainty to the industry to make sure that it knows what is happening; that is true of a large number of the regulations coming before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, seems to think that the Government’s action was not sufficiently vigorous, that we have not done enough over the years and that nothing will happen until 2030—that we could leave this order until 2029. I suspect that neither I nor the noble Lord will be here by that stage—the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, looks so young that I am sure he will still be here debating orders of this sort, which he will greatly enjoy. The important thing, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, is to get certainty.
I believe that we have been ambitious. My right honourable friends Claire Perry and the Secretary of State are ambitious, and, moving wider than CCUS, we have acted well on all other matters relating to renewables. As I said in a recent debate, this applies both to the coalition Government, and therefore to the Lib Dems, and to the previous Labour Government, who passed the Energy Act with all-party support—all sides of the political spectrum have been acting well on this. We have an ambitious action plan designed to enable the first CCUS facility in the UK, with commissioning from the mid-2020s.
I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that the CCUS Council has been established. It is co-chaired by James Smith; it held a meeting at the end of last year and will meet again in March. The noble Lord can be assured of action on that.
I can also offer assurance about consultation on the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. As I said, both the OGA and the devolved Administrations were consulted; the latter, as is appropriate, gave their consent, and the OGA was also content.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh was concerned about consultation. She will not be surprised that we rather expect questions on consultation on all of these regulations, because that seems to be what has been happening. We have not formally consulted, as noble Lords will be aware, on this particular statutory instrument, as the impact on businesses and government will be minimal. This is because the changes are technical and enable the regulatory regime to continue functioning largely as it does now. We did not think it was necessary to consult formally on this, but, as I said, we consulted those particular bodies and published a technical notice in October setting out the climate change requirements in a no-deal scenario.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also asked about the Ospar Convention. I apologise to him because I am unsighted on that matter, but I will write to him. With that, I commend the regulations.
Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
While we believe, as we have said on many occasions, that a deal with the EU is in our mutual interest, it would be irresponsible at this stage not to make appropriate plans for a no deal situation. This draft instrument ensures that in such a scenario our ecodesign and energy labelling legislation will continue to function effectively. It provides business and the public with the certainty they need.
Before I talk specifically about this instrument, it may be helpful if I speak briefly about the current EU framework for ecodesign and energy labelling. In recent years, the EU has introduced a suite of product-specific regulations through the ecodesign directive and the energy labelling regulations framework. The EU ecodesign regulations are about minimising the costs and environmental impact of products used in both homes and businesses by setting minimum performance requirements. Energy labelling regulations are about empowering consumers to make informed purchasing decisions through energy labels.
Both ecodesign and energy labelling regulations agreed to date will save household consumers around £100 on their annual energy bills in 2020, and, just as importantly, lead to greenhouse gas emissions savings of 8 million tonnes of CO2 in 2020. As well as bolstering our commitment to reduce carbon emissions, the policy also serves a purpose for industry. Setting minimum performance requirements can help to drive innovation and increase the competitiveness of businesses, in line with our industrial strategy.
This brings me on to the instrument being debated today. Using the power in the withdrawal Act, this instrument amends EU retained law to ensure that the ecodesign and energy labelling regime remains operable in the event of a no-deal outcome.
I will turn now to the amendments. The instrument replaces references to the “Union market” with the “UK market”, so that ecodesign and labelling requirements continue to apply to the UK market after exit. This amendment is essential so as to prevent less efficient and more polluting products being placed on the UK market. It also gives the Secretary of State the power, currently held by the Commission, to lay ecodesign and energy labelling product-specific regulations. As set out in the Clean Growth Strategy, this power will be exercised to,
“keep step with equivalent standards wherever possible and appropriate, or even exceed them where it is in the UK’s interest to do so”.
The instrument removes the requirement for suppliers placing products on the UK market to enter product information into the EU product database, a new EU online portal, live since January, where market surveillance authorities—the Office for Product Safety and Standards for the UK—can view information uploaded by suppliers. Instead, the market surveillance authority will be able to request technical product information, as it does now, directly from suppliers.
The next three amendments relate to changes the Government are making to the trading of goods subject to EU-wide product-specific rules. They are not specific to this instrument. One of these changes pertains to the conformity assessment of goods to ensure they meet relevant requirements. After exit, products needing to be assessed by a third party in order to show compliance with UK legal requirements will be assessed by UK “approved bodies”. This replaces the pre-exit requirement to use an EU “notified body”. To minimise disruption, however, businesses will for a time-limited period be able to continue using EU notified bodies when selling their goods to the UK after exit.
After exit, a new UK marking will need to be affixed to products for the UK market to indicate conformity with UK requirements. This will replace the CE marking which indicates conformity with EU requirements. To ensure continuity, most manufacturers will still be able to use the CE marking for the UK market. This is intended to be for a time-limited period.
The last of these changes relates to testing standards used for the verification of compliance of products with legal requirements. The current list of EU “harmonised standards” will be carried across but renamed for the UK as “designated standards”.
Finally, this instrument makes minor changes to ensure market surveillance can carry out its enforcement activities with regards to the labelling of household lamps and electric ovens. These are routine changes not related to exit.
In conclusion, these regulations are an appropriate and necessary use of the powers of the withdrawal Act and will maximise continuity in our ecodesign and energy labelling regulations as we leave the EU. I commend the regulations to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I will be more positive about these regulations and make the Minister feel better. I very much welcome the tone of the Explanatory Memorandum and its emphasis on the benefits of energy efficiency, which is clearly one of the least costly and most effective ways to reduce our carbon footprint. In fact, energy efficiency is one of the reasons why although energy prices have gone up, energy bills for households have gone down. This time, the irony is on not the Government but the broader British media because the famous Brussels-regulations-related vacuum cleaner efficiency scandal foisted on British citizens by the tabloids will remain. I welcome those product standards coming across.
My question are quite practical. I think that the Minister went through this, but who will police or register this matter and what will the additional cost of that be? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, who will hold the register? Is the IT for that complete? How will what is on the European Union register get on to the UK register? That covers a series of intellectual property rights issues. We came across this with the REACH chemicals database: you cannot just copy this information across. How can we have a robust system that works in this regard? Without that, this scheme cannot work.
I understand the Minister’s point about continuing labels for a while but, more importantly, will it be legal to sell all the electric appliances covered by this SI in our home market from the point of our departure? I want to understand whether the preparation in those technical areas is right and things will work. Legislation is great but if it cannot work, even passing these regulations is not a lot of use.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, again, I am standing in for my noble friend Lord Grantchester so I apologise to my team in the Box if I do not get the language quite right. I spent time going through the regulations. The SI is quite a tome. I feel as if it covers more than just one issue and a number of SIs have been merged together.
I start with a point about no deal because large swathes of the SI cover that scenario. I know that it also covers what will be needed if there is a deal, but the parts of the SI covering a no-deal scenario would not be needed if the Government agreed with us and ruled out a no-deal Brexit. That would save so much effort, energy, time and money.
Looking at the specifics, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I have a number of questions flowing from the draft SI. I want to work through those issues, some of which are technical and some of which are a bit wider than that.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee declared the draft SI of interest to the House. I am sure that it will be scrutinised further after today. One of the big themes that came through—and one of my concerns—is about the powers that would be moved to the Secretary of State. There are a number of issues around that. The Minister said that these powers are about protecting and preserving the current standards, possibly increasing and building on them, but I do not see that in the language of the draft SI. Part of it says that the Secretary of State will,
“implement the strategy set out on page 44 of the Clean Growth Strategy which is to ‘keep step with equivalent standards [after exit]’”—
but then, “wherever possible and appropriate”. My reading of those words leads me to believe that the Secretary of State may not decide that keeping a level playing field or keeping the standards at a specific level is possible or appropriate, so those standards could dip. A bit of clarification from the Minister would be very helpful.
As has been touched on, the instrument also creates a stand-alone UK regime for third-party product verification, to be established in further detail in later SIs. Can the Minister assure us that these SIs will deal with that under the “made affirmative” procedure rather than the negative one? The text of the instrument is far longer than most, running to more than 80 pages; the five quite distinct schedules and areas contained in it could and should have been separated into separate SIs.
The Government have also chosen not to produce an impact assessment since, as they say, there will be “no imminent change”. Can the Minister clarify what this means? Are we talking about a week, a month or a year? As has been mentioned, there are financial, operational, organisational and oversight issues involved in setting up new bodies.
On page 7, paragraph (7) of proposed new Regulation 2A states:
“Where the Secretary of State removes the reference to a standard from publication, that standard is no longer a designated standard”.
Does this mean that the standard no longer exists in that area? If so, does that raise any implications or concerns?
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked how other bodies would be constituted and what consideration was given to them. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that. On page 11, paragraph (4)(a) of proposed new Regulation 22 says that the Secretary of State must,
“consider the life cycle of the product and all its significant environmental aspects, including its energy efficiency, and the feasibility of their improvement”,
and paragraph (4)(f) says that they must,
“consult on the draft implementing measure”.
I seek clarification from the Minister on which bodies and organisations would be consulted on the draft measures. This would be helpful for the future.
Lord Henley
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for ending on a positive note. I think I can say—I will write to him if I am wrong—that any further SIs will be affirmative. It is important to make a distinction between affirmative and negative orders. The noble Lord will know that, whenever legislation goes through, Governments of whatever political persuasion are often tempted to make some small concessions by offering to turn a negative order into an affirmative one. Oppositions often push for this, thinking that they have achieved some great victory. I have certainly done it in opposition. We then very often burden both Houses with some unnecessary affirmative orders. In the past, I can think of a large number of affirmative paralytic shellfish orders that kept littering the Order Paper. I cannot remember what they were about, but they would probably have been far better left as negative. I can see a Minister at some point making some generous gesture in the course of the Committee on a Bill to suit some Opposition of whatever colour. As far as I know, the orders will be affirmative. If, inappropriately, we try to make them negative, I am sure that the appropriate committees, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, and others, will correct us.
I briefly—but not completely—apologise for the size of the regulations. Rather rashly, I am tempted to say, “You ain’t seen nothing yet”. Speaking more honestly and frankly, very often, it makes life more convenient for the users if we put everything into one instrument. We get a better end product. The noble Lord is exactly correct in saying that this one is 81 pages long. There are a further few pages of the Explanatory Memorandum. To have to repeat this debate five times with five instruments—five into 80—might be a less satisfactory process. So I do not really apologise; I think this is the appropriate way of getting these things done.
I say the same to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who at least welcomed the tone of the Explanatory Memorandum. He told us just how much actions of this sort—even with rising electricity costs—could reduce one’s electricity bills.
I suggest another mechanism: to get one’s children out of the house, which happens when they get to a certain age. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, shakes his head, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, knows exactly what I am talking about.
Lord Teverson
I agree, in that my wife’s 40 year-old daughter has just left the house to move elsewhere, so that is a very appropriate comment and I look forward to the reduction in my electricity bill.
Lord Henley
I was not thinking of those who had reached the maturity of 40; I was thinking of the somewhat younger ones who, despite their extraordinarily green credentials, take a slightly less purist approach to turning off lights and other procedure.
I shall deal quickly with some of the questions. On the impact assessment, I assure the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, that the instrument’s impact was assessed at below the annual cost of £5 million, which was why a full impact assessment was not required, but a de minimis impact analysis was undertaken to reach this conclusion and, in doing so, the department followed the guidance, so we are happy about that.
On consultation, I assure both noble Lords that we worked very closely with the industry and other organisations, meeting them and keeping them up-to-date via email. Last summer, officials met all the appropriate trade bodies to consult them. Views were sought on the proposal to keep the design of the energy label, remove obligations in relation to the EU product database and retain the legislative functions carried out by the Commission for the Secretary of State. In the main, as far as I know, the trade bodies supported all those proposals and stressed the importance of not imposing new costs on businesses and the UK being able to legislate after exit.
I shall deal with some of the more detailed points. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the policing of this. Ecodesign enforcement and control activities are carried out by the Office for Product Safety and Standards. Energy labelling enforcement and control activities are carried out by that office and local authorities’ trading standards departments in Great Britain and by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. The regulations will not result in any change in that policy.
The noble Lord also asked who holds the products register and whether there is one for the UK. There is no UK database, but there is an EU-wide database, which went live on 1 January this year. There have been delays on the public section of that database, but it remains broadly on track and, after exit, we will review whether to introduce a UK database. Again, I can give the assurance that we will consult on that. He also asked whether all appliances under the SI will be covered from the point of exit, and I can assure him that the changes come into force from exit day and there will be no gaps.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, was concerned that there could be a reduction in standards, but I can assure him that we continue to support all these policy measures, which cut energy bills and increase energy security. As stated in the Clean Growth Strategy, we will keep step with equivalent standards, but intend to go further where, as I think I said in my opening remarks, we believe that is in the interests of the UK.
I have dealt with the noble Lord’s concerns about consultation, but I just correct myself on the affirmative nature of SIs. Only the SIs that are not identical to EU standards will be affirmative. If they are not identical to EU standards, they will be negative. I think I have it the right way round.
Lord Henley
It is the other way around, but the noble Lord has understood me anyway. He also wanted clarification on “designated standards” in the Explanatory Memorandum. The instrument renames the EU’s harmonised standards—the testing standards that can be used for the verification of products’ compliance with EU requirements—as “designated standards”. Designated standards will give rise to a presumption of conformity with UK legal requirements in the same way that the EU’s harmonised standards do in relation to EU requirements. To ensure continuity and not drive up testing costs, the testing standards in the UK and the EU will remain the same. That is what the UK industry wants. The reference to designated standards will again be published on GOV.UK. I believe that deals with the points that have been raised.
Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My note here starts with: “My Lords”. I am also addressing the public, but I am glad that the Deputy Chairman of Committees is also present, so the term applies most appropriately.
During the 1990s, the trade in conflict diamonds was a significant cause of instability, particularly in Africa. The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is an important tool for reducing conflict, in Africa and elsewhere. Great strides have been made since its inception in 2002, and today more than 99% of the global supply chain of rough diamonds is certified as conflict-free.
From the beginning of the Kimberley process, the United Kingdom has been represented by the European Union. Together with our European partners and other participants, the UK has been active in our support of the Kimberley process and its principles: to increase transparency, to ensure trade is limited to Kimberley process participants, and, importantly, to apply effective controls.
The Kimberley process is not a treaty and has no basis in international law. Instead, it is simply a grouping of interested states—the “participants”—that have decided to enact domestically a uniform process for verifying the trade in rough diamonds at their borders. They then made the political decision to permit the trade in rough diamonds only with similarly minded states to establish the Kimberley process. The legal effects of the Kimberley process come from domestic legislation, hence this legislation is essential if we are to continue to participate in the process after we leave the European Union—as we intend to do.
As noble Lords will be aware, until 29 March 2019, the UK remains a full EU member state, subject to all the rights and obligations of membership. Those include trade arrangements that fall within the EU’s common commercial policy, including the Kimberley process. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, we have agreed with the EU that it will notify international partners that the UK is to be treated as a member state during the implementation period. This would mean that the UK would continue to participate, represented by the EU, and the UK trade in Kimberley process-compliant rough diamonds would continue. In the event that we are unable to enter into an implementation period, our participation through the EU would end and UK trade would be frozen until our application for participation was approved by other participants in the Kimberley process.
In either case, the legislation would ensure that we continue to comply with the requirements of the Kimberley process. It would secure our borders, prevent any non-compliant rough diamonds from entering the UK supply chain and send a strong message to would-be smugglers that the United Kingdom is not a recipient of conflict diamonds. It would also reassure the Kimberley process body of the UK’s commitment to the scheme, ahead of our application for independent participation. The instrument does not undermine the wider EU withdrawal negotiations, nor does it assume no deal. Instead it lays the groundwork for our future relationship with, and independent participation in, the Kimberley process. Essentially, it enables business as usual.
This matters because maintaining our relationship with the Kimberley process is an intrinsic element of our international commitments to conflict prevention. It is also pivotal in how we support UK business to operate responsibly in post-conflict and other difficult environments. The Kimberley process is not perfect, but as an independent participant, the UK will maintain our commitment to the ongoing reform process and continue to be an active and collaborative partner.
Some noble Lords have noted that a significant portion of UK trade in rough diamonds could fall away once we have left the EU. The reality is that, given the structure of the UK rough diamond market, trade statistics can be misleading. UK exports in rough diamonds outside the EU were valued at £67 million in 2017. We expect this to continue at around this level once we have left the EU.
The Government Diamond Office implements the Kimberley process in the UK, and is working closely with Border Force to ensure we meet the minimum standards set by the process. We are a well-respected participant in the Kimberley process as an EU member state and can expect to remain so as an independent participant. We have already informed the EU of our intention to initiate our application. Demonstrating that we have appropriate legislation in place is a fundamental part of that application process. That is the purpose of this instrument. Once passed, it will apply even if we are not a participant immediately at the point that the UK leaves the European Union, or after any implementation period.
Last week, this instrument was considered and approved by the other place—introduced by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, Sir Alan Duncan—and has been approved. I welcome this opportunity to hear the views of the noble Lord on this draft order. I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure the Minister that I also welcome the opportunity to give him my views, once again—we have the opportunity at frequent intervals. I will say, right from the outset, that of course we support wholeheartedly the principles of the Kimberley process. It is not perfect and can certainly be improved on regarding impact, but it has certainly had a substantial impact in diminishing that awful, illicit trade in war diamonds. It is extremely welcome that we will continue to apply the principles after Brexit, and certainly ensure there are no gaps that could potentially be exploited.
One area of criticism is the fact that, as an exit SI, it is caught up in this overwhelming number that are coming forward, and whether there has been sufficient time for proper scrutiny. Irrespective of that—I have called this an “SI stampede”—whatever we have, the Explanatory Memorandum sets out, as the Minister has said, the reasons for this. It is an unusual SI in terms of an exit SI, because it is required in its provisions whether there is a deal or no deal. It is just that, if there were a deal within the transitional period, we would be able to ensure that our transition from EU involvement to being an independent participant goes smoothly.
There is a slight difference between a deal or no-deal situation. As the Minister said, 82 countries are members, and Sir Alan Duncan said in the other place that he was confident our existing participant status would be embraced by the 81 as we reapply on a slightly different basis. But doing so within the terms of an agreement to leave the EU is different from coming out at the end of March. We are faced with possible consequences, and it is those consequences that I will address.
As the Minister said, in the event that we are unable to enter an implementation period, our participation through the EU would end and UK trade would be frozen until our application for participation was approved by the other participants in the Kimberley process. In either case, as he says, this draft legislation will ensure that we continue to comply with the requirements of the process. It will secure our borders, prevent any non-compliant rough diamonds entering the UK supply chain, et cetera.
What assessment have the Government made of the impact such a break in our coverage of the process would have on our conflict prevention objectives and obligations? We have been a prime mover of this, so would there be any sort of impact? While we are saying we are going to ensure we remain compliant even outside the process, I want a better understanding of what assessment has been made if we are outside it.
Sir Alan Duncan said that the cost would be the same as now. Likewise, the impact is unchanged, hence the absence of a need for an impact assessment. Paragraph 13 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report quotes the Explanatory Memorandum on why there would be no significant impact on business—because it broadly replicates what we have now, and will apply in a no-deal situation. But the committee—I want to ask the Minister about this—found the Explanatory Memorandum,
“deficient for not articulating more clearly the potential financial and commercial consequences for the trade if endorsement of the UK’s application to the Scheme is delayed”,
coming back to this point that inevitably, if we fall out of EU at the end of March, there will be a period when we are not covered. What does that actually mean?
Is the Minister able to say categorically that a no-deal scenario, where for a period we may be outside the scheme, would not involve any additional cost to the UK diamond trade? Sir Alan Duncan responded to Bob Stewart in the other place on the fact that this is about rough diamonds, not the sort of imports and exports that Hatton Garden would have. He said that this SI,
“is about a particular category of diamond. The draft regulations mean that if we were a participant, anything legal in the Kimberley process would include us in that process; if we do not pass them today, it would not”.—[Official Report, Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 5/2/19; col. 8.]
I understand that this is a case for making this SI. I do not have any objection, but I want to be absolutely clear that, in this no-deal scenario, the Government are completely satisfied that there will be no financial impact, particularly on small businesses. Has there been any consultation with the trade on this specific point?
With these few remarks, I will leave it for the Minister to respond.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am truly grateful for the noble Lord’s participation, without which we might not be having this SI debate. I thank and pay tribute to the noble Lord. It is often said that you call your friends “diamonds”. We may call each other “noble Lord” and not “noble friend”, but I am grateful that I have a diamond of an opposition shadow Minister to deal with—often in a spirit of harmony. On the odd occasion we challenge each other, it is reflective of our mutual respect. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contributions this afternoon.
As I outlined in my opening remarks, this instrument is crucial to the UK’s participation in the Kimberley process. This point was acknowledged by the noble Lord, and I thank him for his support in this regard. In turn, he raised the important issue of conflict-prevention objectives and obligations. As we have both acknowledged, the convention is not perfect, but this instrument seeks to ensure the continuity of the UK’s participation in a process that has seen results, especially when you see the commitment of the countries now participating in this process. It is right that countries come together to ensure that we protect this important sector and industry and send a clear message to those seeking to exploit the trade in rough diamonds. It is also important to note that this instrument maintains the status quo of the UK’s participation in the scheme.
The instrument is fully consistent with the Prime Minister’s commitment to be a supportive member of the European Union—both as we negotiate our departure and once we have left. It ensures the UK’s continuous compliance with the scheme.
I will pick up on a few of the noble Lord’s specific questions. He talked first about what would happen if the UK were not able to participate in the Kimberley process in the case of a no-deal exit from the European Union. This would of course affect the integrity of the process which we helped to establish. Without this legislation before the Committee, the UK would not have the power to seize illegal rough diamonds and would be perceived as a weak link in the process. Irrespective of how we leave the EU, this SI will ensure the UK’s adherence to the principles of the Kimberley process. It will demonstrate the UK’s continued commitment in this respect.
The noble Lord then built on the issue of conflict prevention. The fact that we are committed to participating, irrespective of the nature of our departure from the EU, underlines the importance of having this SI in place for both scenarios. Across the House, we are focused on the importance of ensuring that we prevent conflict—as I know the noble Lord is.
The noble Lord also asked about the costs associated.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Before the Minister leaves the point about maintaining our objectives and policy, I have a question. As it sort of states in the memorandum of agreement, I accept that, irrespective of whether we are able to participate as a member of the convention, we will continue to apply its conditions. That is how I read the statement. However, even if we continue to apply it, will our not being—potentially for a period—a participating member of the convention allow any gaps in our ability to ensure a continuation of this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
In passing this SI, we are committed to ensuring that in any kind of gap that would occur—irrespective of whether we are formally part of the Kimberley process or not—our own industry, sector and standing as a country would be protected. In addition, more importantly, as I said, we would be committed to prevent anyone using the exit from the European Union, if it is on the basis of a no deal, to exploit any such gaps. I hear what the noble Lord said. The way this SI is drafted is to ensure that we are ready and will apply those same rules, irrespective.
The noble Lord raises the specific issue—it is a valid one—that if we were not to be part of the Kimberley process if there is no deal and there is a delay in gaining our independent participation by a given date, that would result in issues around trade. That would have an impact and I do not shy away from that fact. However, it is our hope and—it was coincidental that we informed the EU of our application to join as an independent member, not just as a member of the EU, because the EU was actually the chair of the Kimberley process at that time—we have certainly not perceived any reason why we would not be able to join as an independent member.
Turning to trade and the costs, the noble Lord asked for a categoric assurance that there would be no impact. That kind of categoric assurance cannot be given. What we do have is the fact that the UK rough diamond trade currently comprises around 15 regular traders, with a few additional ad hoc traders. De Beers also imports rough diamonds for research and development and exhibition purposes. While I cannot give a categoric assurance, I assure the noble Lord that we have been in contact with traders who are making appropriate contingency plans, and we will be looking to support the industry in this respect. I assure the noble Lord that we understand that companies involved in this process will be taking appropriate contingency measures.
I appreciate that the noble Lord draws attention to the cost to the industry, and as best as possible we have certainly looked at it. We believe this will be limited. The statutory instrument itself is reflective of our intention to stay and be committed to the process. In passing this instrument today, we will ensure that and give an important signal not just to our EU partners but importantly to all members of the Kimberley process. I hope I have addressed the noble Lord’s questions quite directly.
House of Lords
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Recycling
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to introduce a simple and uniform system for both (1) labelling plastic and (2) bin collections in England, with the aim of reducing the use of plastic and encouraging recycling; and if so, by what date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, we intend to introduce a uniform recycling labelling system for all packaging, including plastic packaging. We also intend to have a simpler, more consistent waste collection system. We will consult on these proposals arising from the resources and waste strategy very shortly. Thereafter, we will seek legislative opportunities so that these measures can be introduced by 2023.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am a little disappointed, because the time for action is now, as our useful debate before Christmas showed. People need to use less plastic and to recycle more of what they use. There is a woeful lack of clarity on what is recyclable. The simple “one to seven” industry codes need to appear clearly on all plastics, and all local authorities should have a uniform bin system—one for food waste, one for garbage, and one or more for recycling. There should also be uniform guidance on plastic, perhaps linked to the numbers I have mentioned.
Irresponsible use of plastic is causing huge damage to the environment. Does my noble friend accept—I think he does—that focused, simple, uniform action is needed and that our mother of Parliaments needs to move fast on this?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I understand and share my noble friend’s wish for action. The truth is that we need to get this right in consultation and working with local authorities and industry. However, that does not stop a lot of progress being made before the primary and secondary legislation comes through. That is why I am very pleased that only recently Cornwall Council, for instance, announced that it will adopt a weekly separate collection of food waste and a weekly collection of segregated recyclable materials. Indeed, many supermarkets and retailers are engaging in this now. I agree—I want it done as soon as possible, but we need to get it right.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, should we not take a much harder line with manufacturers that produce plastics that cannot be recycled? The Government could start by producing an approved list of materials that are acceptable, which should then be underpinned by charges to those who continue to produce non-compliant products. The Government could do that immediately.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is why we have committed in our resources and waste strategy to reforming current packaging producer responsibility systems. The measures that we wish to bring forward will incentivise producers to make much more sustainable decisions at design stage and point of manufacture. This is consistent with the “polluter pays” principle. We want producers to be more responsible for the full costs of managing their packaging.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, should not this House be leading the way in reducing the use of plastic? Virtually all the mail that comes home from this House, especially during the Recess, is in heavy plastic—magazines arrive wrapped in plastic—and I hope the Government will encourage the authorities to stop doing that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, obviously both Houses are aiming to eliminate avoidable single-use plastic by this year. I am mindful of what the noble Baroness has said and in Defra and across Whitehall we are all seeking to reduce the use of plastic. It is a very good point.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is not feasible to force all local authorities into standardised waste collections. Geographical areas across the country vary from blocks of flats in cities through to isolated rural homes down winding lanes. Currently, 50 different types of plastic are produced and used in the UK compared to two in Norway. Surely a more productive way forward is for the plastics industry to play its part by producing fewer plastic types and ensuring that what is produced is recyclable. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Yes and yes. We need through research and investment, both public and private, to ensure that materials and plastic are reused and recycled much more and that there is consistency. The noble Baroness is right: the lowest recycling rate is in Newham at 14% and yet in the East Riding of Yorkshire it is 64%. There is great disparity in all regions and we need to work on obtaining a more consistent and higher rate of recycling.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, the issue is not only recycle and reuse but reduce. I was at the celebration of the first anniversary of the Eco Synagogue a few weeks ago and saw real alternatives to plastic being developed by industry, such as Indonesian seaweed to replace 16 billion packets of ketchup, mayonnaise and the like. Alternatives are being produced but industry is so heavily invested in the production of plastic that it is difficult to make the commercial switch. What are the Government doing to fund the development of alternatives to plastic which will help us to make the change that is needed?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The right reverend Prelate referred to research. Innovation and research is a considerable part of the resources and waste strategy, and there is £20 million for the plastic research and innovation fund. This is about finding not only better forms of plastic but compostable alternatives. We have the exciting prospect of recycling and reusing more in dealing with our waste in this country.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, does not the evidence strongly suggest that where we cannot eliminate the use of plastic we ought to incinerate it, rather than send it for so-called recycling to the Far East, where much of it ends up in rivers and thereby in the ocean?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My noble friend is right. This is why waste incineration for energy has increased to 41.4% whereas landfill, for instance, has fallen from 79% in 2000 to 12.5% currently. We are now increasing considerably the amount of energy recovery from incineration. If it is not to be reused or recycled then this is a much better option than any of the others, including landfill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I strongly disagree with the Minister and the fellow opposite—the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—because although, obviously, we should not be sending plastic abroad, we should also not be incinerating it. To call incinerated energy green is nonsense—it is not green. I produced a report last year, a copy of which I think I sent to the Minister, saying that incineration was about to overtake recycling. Has that point been reached? Are we burning more waste than we are recycling?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
No we are not, my Lords. To be precise, in 2017 the household recycling rate was 45.2%. Perhaps we should discuss this outside the Chamber but my understanding is that 50% of energy from waste is deemed to be renewable. It is better if, rather than using landfill in that waste hierarchy, we recover energy where we cannot reuse or recycle. The overwhelming point is that innovation and research will help us to reduce the use of plastic and, wherever possible, reuse and recycle it.
Election Expenditure
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the merits of providing greater clarity in legislation about what constitutes (1) constituency expenditure on behalf of a candidate and (2) national expenditure on behalf of a party, following the verdict of R v Mackinlay, Gray and Little.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Government believe that the law governing elections should be clear and operate effectively. We are working closely with the Electoral Commission on new codes of practice for election expenses. These will be informed by the issues that arose in the recent case, including the question that was referred to the Supreme Court. In the first instance, this will provide greater clarity for those taking part in our democratic process.
Lord Rennard (LD)
Since the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Southwark Crown Court confirmed that many of the common practices in recent general elections were illegal, saying, “We did not know that it was against the law to classify expenditure targeted at an individual constituency as national expenditure”—thereby trying to avoid the constituency expenditure limits—will no longer be a strong defence in court. In those talks with the Electoral Commission and the parties, will the Minister seek not just clarity in the law and improved guidance but to uphold properly the principle of a level playing field in constituency campaigning, so that it is not possible for one party to seek to buy a seat in Parliament?
Lord Young of Cookham
I entirely agree with the principle that the noble Lord has just enunciated. I was looking at the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883, which enshrined the principle to which he referred. The preamble states that,
“if its provisions are honestly carried out, the length of a man’s purse will not, as now, be such an important factor”.
I am afraid that a woman’s purse did not get a mention, it being 1883. The text continued,
“and the way will be opened for many men of talent, with small means, to take part in the government of the country, who have been hitherto deterred from seeking a seat in the House of Commons by the great expense which a contest entails”.
That principle is timeless, even if the language may not be.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that while guidance, codes and statutory instruments may deliver some of the change we need, it is only through primary legislation that we will get the electoral law fit for purpose?
Lord Young of Cookham
That is why, in my Answer, I said that in the first instance, the code of practice will provide greater clarity for those taking part in our democratic process. At the meeting attended by the noble Lord and six other noble Lords yesterday, the point was made that there may be some inconsistency in the primary legislation, which may need addressing. What I have said does not preclude a more radical look at primary legislation, as the noble Lord suggested.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the primary threat to the integrity of elections in this country is not because of failure by the political parties but because of anonymous online targeting of our fellow citizens, whereby people cannot trace the source of funds or what is happening? What do the Government plan to do about that?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Baroness raises a valid point. The Electoral Commission produced a report last year, Digital Campaigning: Increasing Transparency for Voters, which had recommendations along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness. The DCMS Select Committee in another place is looking at exactly this issue, and when we have its report, we will see whether fresh legislation is needed in order to provide greater transparency on who is paying for what.
Lord Hayward (Con)
First, I declare a personal interest, in that I know well all three individuals named in the Question. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in seeking clarification, particularly in relation to the upcoming local elections on 2 May. There is uncertainty for both candidates and agents. Will the Electoral Commission and other bodies urgently seek to provide as much clarification as possible, so that, where possible, that element of uncertainty is removed?
Lord Young of Cookham
My noble friend raises a good point. The recent guidance by the Electoral Commission was issued before we had the judgment of the Southwark court. Certainly, the commission might see whether that guidance might be updated to help candidates and agents in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Southwark case.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vital to retain a robustly independent Electoral Commission with political input but with a majority of independent members, and that we never return to the bad old days when the rules were decided by the party which formed the Government in the House of Commons?
Lord Young of Cookham
Yes. Before we had the Electoral Commission many of its responsibilities were discharged by the Home Office, which was, of course, run by political animals; namely, Ministers. It enhances confidence in the democratic process to have an independent commission, such as the Electoral Commission, in charge of the rules. We have no intention of departing from the principles which underpin the Electoral Commission. I think I am right in saying, as the Opposition spokesman at the time, that my party supported its establishment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Despite my noble friend’s last answer, does he think that the Electoral Commission provides good value for money, with a budget of £17 million a year and 200 staff, which is more than most of the organisations it regulates?
Lord Young of Cookham
It is within my recollection that at the beginning of the coalition Government, when all public bodies were put under scrutiny, the Electoral Commission was asked to reduce its core expenditure by 30% in real terms—a very substantial target—so it had to make economies. I hope that, like all public bodies, it will seek efficiencies in every way possible. I note from its most recent annual report and accounts that it underspent by just over £1 million last year, and that money was returned to the taxpayer.
Commercial Air Routes: United Kingdom and East Africa
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Popat
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that new commercial air routes between the United Kingdom and East Africa are allocated sufficient and convenient departure slots at either Heathrow or Gatwick airports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, UK airport slot allocation is based on worldwide guidelines from the International Air Transport Association—IATA. These guidelines provide for slots to be allocated independently of government in a non-discriminatory way. The Government recognise the difficulty of obtaining slots at highly constrained UK airports, and the much-needed additional capacity from Heathrow expansion will ease that constraint, enabling us to maintain and develop long-haul connectivity, including to developing economies such as Rwanda and Uganda.
Lord Popat (Con)
I thank the Minister for that helpful response. Almost two years ago, I helped RwandAir launch direct flights between London and Kigali, but I found that securing convenient landing and departures slots was practically impossible at Gatwick or Heathrow. The problem is that the biggest airlines, including budget airlines, have a monopoly over peak-time slots through grandfathering rights, meaning that newer airlines are squeezed out. Does the Minister agree that, given our country’s need to build commercial bridges with Africa post Brexit, we need a better and fairer system to ensure adequate access to those markets? Will she assure us that the Government will look urgently into reforming the allocation system?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his continued efforts as a trade envoy to Rwanda and Uganda and particularly for his support for UK businesses involved in building Kigali airport. The Government believe that there is a case for changes in slot allocation where there is significant new capacity. Our aviation strategy, Aviation 2050, consults on a wide range of policy proposals designed to increase competition and connectivity both domestically and abroad. That includes looking at existing slot regulations to see how we can promote competition and ensure new long-haul routes, such as those to east Africa, can be delivered.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, while I agree with the sentiment behind the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Popat, would the Minister nevertheless concur that encouraging intraregional trade is essential for multiple reasons and that encouraging an east-west network of air routes should be made a practical reality?
Baroness Sugg
I think I agree with what the noble Viscount says. The purpose of our slot reform would be to increase competition and benefit the consumer.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, BA has in the region of 380 slots at Heathrow and Virgin has 27. Under the current system of slot allocation, every time new slots become available, they are allocated on the basis of the current ratio. This means that it is impossible to challenge BA’s position. This is not real competition and it is not good for consumers, who are offered no real choice. Will the Minister commit to look specifically at this aspect of slot allocation?
Baroness Sugg
Yes, we will. The current slot regime allows for new entrants. The regulations require 50% of available slots to be given to new entrants. The main issue is that there are not very many slots available. This is why we need expansion. There will be more slots available with expansion and with other airports making better use of their existing capacity. Our aim in looking at the slot allocation regime is to ensure competition, which will ultimately benefit the consumer.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, government Ministers talk in enthusiastic terms about the new trade agreements that we will be able to conclude with other countries following Brexit. Will the availability at our major airport of sufficient and appropriate airline slots for direct services to those other countries be an important consideration in successfully concluding such trade deals? If so, do the Government intend to make sure—as opposed to simply talking about it—that such slots are available at Heathrow, or Gatwick at least, in the immediate aftermath of Brexit when, as I understand it, these new trade agreements with other countries will be concluded with considerable rapidity?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we aim to increase our connectivity across the globe. We have a very experienced team of air services negotiators in our department who work across the world to deliver new air services agreements. Our current approach is to favour as much liberalisation as possible, providing it is in the UK’s national interest. Regardless of the negotiations, Brexit will not deliver new slots, but an increased capacity at Heathrow will do. That will help us increase our links, and increase our trade links, across the world.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, given the Middle East’s enormous appetite for access to the British market, would the Minister reconsider the prohibition on direct flights from Iraq to the United Kingdom and lift the prohibition on Iraqi pilots? Sadly, at the moment, they must be substituted by Jordanian pilots, who are doubtless wonderful but are none the less not the national product.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, all of our decisions are based on our priorities of safety and security. We regularly look at our current system and will update it regularly.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister suggest to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport that he might suggest creating mythical new slots for mythical airlines without planes?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I was considering how noble Lords might be able to ask a question like that when we were talking about east African slots, but I had not considered that angle. We are interested in delivering real slots for real flights to new countries.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, it is not just about the slots but what sort of slots are made available to these new airlines. They are often at the worst times of day. British Airways does not fly directly to Rwanda, and RwandAir plugged the gap by flying to the UK three times a day, I think—or a week. The problem is planning, because when the slots are given, they are given for only six months at a time. What sort of business can plan for six months only? Can the Minister go back and give these slots for longer?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to point out that there are no direct BA flights to these countries. It does operate direct flights to Kenya and across the continent. In 2017, there were over 23,000 direct flights to Africa, carrying over 4.5 million passengers. My noble friend is quite right: the timing of the allocation of these slots is absolutely key. As with all businesses, airlines need to plan ahead. We are looking at that through our slot reform policy consultation.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, if there is increasing demand for passengers and freight to be taken to east African countries, notably Rwanda, the airlines themselves might realise that there is some advantage in changing their flight schedules. The Government’s interest might be not only in that but in the fact that Rwanda is to host the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and it will be somewhat embarrassing if we do not have direct service by then. Does my noble friend agree?
Baroness Sugg
As my noble friend will be aware, decisions around where airlines fly are down to commercial reasons. However, I agree with him that it is important that we promote ties with Rwanda, not least as it is following us in hosting the next CHOGM summit. Trade in goods and services between the UK and Rwanda increased by 50% last year, outstripping growth in east Africa and indeed the continent as a whole. We want to see that growth in trade continue.
Schools: Climate Change Strike
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to schools whose students plan to take part in the pupils’ strike on climate change on 15 February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, we understand the importance of the issue but missing school is not the solution. Absence causes disruption for other pupils and for teachers, as schools seek to ensure that absent pupils catch up with the work that has been missed. Ultimately, if a pupil is absent from school, it is for schools to decide whether to authorise the absence. Advice on recording absence is included in the school attendance guidance.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, is it not the case that today’s pupils and students will be the ones who, over the next 60 or 80 years or more, will suffer the most from the disastrous consequences of climate change unless those of us who are of a rather more advanced age today deal with the matter quickly? Will the Minister give a clear guarantee that the students who decide to take part in the action on Friday on the basis of a personal decision conscientiously made will not be punished or suffer any retribution as a result?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, as I said in my Answer, it will be for the head teachers of the schools affected to consider whether the absences are authorised. On the other part of the noble Lord’s question, our efforts on climate change are a tremendous success story. According to PwC, we are the fastest G20 country to decarbonise since 2000 and, according to a Drax report, we have been independently assessed as leading the world in decarbonising electricity since 2008 and as being one of the fastest countries to phase out coal-powered generation. All those things will benefit the next generation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, could the Government be more creative in their thinking and interpret the strike as an encouraging example of young people’s active citizenship and civic engagement, the implications of which could usefully be explored in citizenship education classes?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I do not accept that taking time off school in the middle of term is useful for children. All the evidence suggests that time off school affects their education. We have made tremendous progress in attendance levels over the last 10 years, and in any way validating this sort of behaviour does not help children.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, further to my noble friend’s Answer, can he explain why it is right for children to go on strike during term time at a cost to the taxpayer and to their own education? Why can they not leave these protests until the holidays?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My noble friend asks a very valid question, and it is one that I have asked. Children have 15 weeks of holidays and half-terms in which to demonstrate without incurring disruption and extra workloads for their teachers. An average primary school lesson costs £1,600 and a secondary school lesson about £1,900, so school is where they should be.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, why do we not encourage children to strike every Friday—about terrorism next week, about overfishing of the oceans the week after and about social media the week after that? It would make the Government very popular if we gave children an extra day off school every week.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
As keen as I am to make our Government popular, that is not a route that I advocate.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is taking this Question entirely seriously. The question from my noble friend concerning active citizenship is not to be brushed lightly aside. Young people have few enough opportunities to demonstrate that they have understood the issues of the day for them and their generation. This might be one of them, and perhaps the Minister would like to look at it again in that light.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I understand the noble Baroness’s passion for the subject. We are all concerned about the climate. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, we are ahead of the world in many of the things that we are doing on climate change. Indeed, the Guardian reports that last year the UK was the only country in the EU to reduce its electricity consumption, whereas all the other countries increased it. We are doing an enormous amount. If these children stayed in class, they could learn about some of the things that we are doing. We have science and geography curriculums, and we have citizenship education. Those are all opportunities to learn about these important matters.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that citizenship education in this country is unfortunately in a very parlous state at the moment? In many schools, it is simply not being done; in others, it is being done very badly. I will follow up on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Without supporting strike action, perhaps we could encourage the headmasters of the schools where children go on strike to engage more fully in citizenship education, so that their pupils will know how to make a difference.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
To give the noble and right reverend Lord some reassurance, I say that we have recently issued new guidance for Ofsted inspections and all these points are being moved up the profile for children. Today’s first Question—it showed the House working at its best, with cross-party debate—was about the use of plastic, which is something children can be much more active in. How many young people do noble Lords see on the Tube drinking bottles of water which are then thrown away? Young people can actively participate in that, much more than on long-term climate change, which we are already dealing with.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, first, can we applaud the fact that young people really care about this issue? We quite often moan that they do not bother about anything. Secondly, I remind the Minister that his former Secretary of State, Mr Gove, tried to remove climate change from the curriculum. It was thanks to Ed Davey in the environment department that we won that battle. Finally, given that this is such an important issue, why do we not have a national climate change day, when schools and communities could discuss this important topic?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, it is up to schools to find the specific parts of their curriculum. We announced £10 million of investment to support schools to share best practice on behaviour management, and indeed on matters of this kind.
Zimbabwe: Asylum Seekers
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the human rights violations in Zimbabwe and on what grounds do they consider it safe to proceed with the deportation of asylum seekers of that country.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the UK continues to call for the Government of Zimbabwe to uphold the rule of law and human rights and promote free and fair elections, under the protection of the 2013 constitution and international human rights law. The Home Office seeks to return only those whose asylum claim has been unsuccessful. They are, by definition, not at risk on return. All protection claims from Zimbabwean nationals are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the Government themselves have expressed serious concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe, as have Amnesty International and other NGOs and charities. There are reports of oppression of activists and allegations of beatings, rapes and killings. In light of this, how have the Government deemed it safe to return asylum seekers to that country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right that the Government have expressed serious concerns and we continue to call for the Government of Zimbabwe to uphold the rule of law and human rights and promote free and fair elections under that protection of the constitution and international human rights law. I reiterate that when we return somebody to their country of origin, we seek to do so only when we and the courts have considered it safe.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission has reported that not only did the police and military target members of the MDC, the opposition party, and civil society organisations, their offices were broken into and their membership files downloaded. Subsequently, beatings were carried out and arrests made late at night. What assessment have the Government made of this escalation in premeditated human rights abuses, particularly—as the noble Lord mentioned—in regard to factoring in opposition party membership when assessing asylum seekers’ claims in this country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord has hit on something that the Government acknowledge—there are risks to certain people who oppose the ruling ZANU-PF Government. That does not extend to all people, but when determining an asylum claim, all things are taken into consideration and no one will be returned if it is not safe to return them.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many Zimbabweans there are in the United Kingdom who might be subjected to deportation? Given what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Chidgey and Lord Kennedy, about the continuing arrests, abductions, torture and beatings—and the serious concerns expressed not just in the UK, but around the world—would it not be prudent in the meantime to suspend deportations until those issues have been more thoroughly considered?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not know how many Zimbabweans are in the UK—I presume he means Zimbabweans who are seeking asylum in the UK. I do not have that figure. Torture, beatings and other alleged human rights abuses are all taken into consideration by the Government when an asylum claim is made, and no one will be sent back to face human rights abuses in the country of return.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I have both presented and defended on asylum cases as a lawyer and would be grateful if my noble friend could explain how the country brief in relation to individual countries—specifically in relation to Zimbabwe on this occasion—is put together. How accurate and up to date is that information, and which human rights organisations do the Government liaise with in ensuring that the country brief is reflective of the situation on the ground?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, my noble friend asks a relevant question, but we do not take a country-based decision in looking at asylum claims. We look at the individual claim, depending on what it might be for, and then take a view on whether it is safe to return that person.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, given the current climate in Zimbabwe, which is a human rights-free zone, and with President Mnangagwa and his military henchmen cracking down on individual freedom and particularly the opposition, nobody should be deported, especially when families are protesting about the desperate situation they will probably face. Surely the Minister accepts that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly accept the noble Lord’s point that Zimbabwe is violating human rights conventions, but civil unrest—in and of itself—is not a reason to grant somebody protection. There are certain issues within that civil unrest—for example if someone is opposing the current regime and might be at risk, that would be taken into consideration.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Foreign Office issues guidance about countries which are not safe for us to travel to, yet there are people deported to countries which we have been advised that we should not visit?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am aware that FCO guidance advises UK nationals if it is not a good idea to visit somewhere, particularly if there are areas of civil unrest. However, civil unrest, in and of itself, is not a reason to grant an asylum claim.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Minister accepts there are serious human rights abuses in Zimbabwe, what steps does her department take in individual cases to ensure that people will not be subjected to those abuses if they are returned to the country? Lawyers quoted in the Guardian today are very worried that they will be.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I have said before in this House, asylum claims are thoroughly assessed. They have various levels of scrutiny as they proceed through the system. One of the main things in returning someone to a country is to ensure they would not be subjected to human rights abuses should they return.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, when did the Minister last look at in-country reports, particularly those produced by Amnesty International? How have they affected the decision-making process in the Home Office on asylum applications?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On looking at in-country briefs, clearly my department is not the FCO but I am aware of some of the information and advice that the FCO gives to people going to certain countries. To go to an area in Zimbabwe experiencing civil unrest might not be a great idea. The Home Office is aware of certain things, but clearly my colleagues in the Foreign Office would be more sighted on that.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Does the Minister draw a distinction between civil unrest and civil repression?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Both might go on. I am not trying to say at this Dispatch Box that the situation in Zimbabwe is in any way ideal. It is not. The Government have made representations through our embassy in Harare on the situation in Zimbabwe. I am not trying to pretend that the situation is in any way ideal.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister has repeatedly said that the Home Office looks at the circumstances of the individual case in deciding whether to return a person to Zimbabwe, but surely it must have a policy as to whether it is safe to return to Zimbabwe a person who is an active opponent of the regime there.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I cited that as the one example, whereby someone who opposed ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe might be at risk if they were returned to that country.
EU Withdrawal
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That this House takes note of the ongoing discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Motion before us asks the House to take note of the ongoing discussions with the European Union. These discussions follow from the statutory debate on 29 January in the other place. It was during this debate that the Prime Minister was given a mandate to seek “alternative arrangements” to the backstop. During that debate the Prime Minister confirmed that,
“if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February, we will make a statement and, again, table an amendable motion for debate the next day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/19; col. 671.]
The debate on the amendable Motion will take place in the other place tomorrow, but, consistent with the approach taken throughout the process of exiting the EU, it is right that your Lordships should have a chance to comment on and inform the process also.
As always, I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions this afternoon and, as we gather here again, no debate would be complete without an amending Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I pay tribute to her work and, indeed, that of my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for their continued contributions and the scrutiny that they provide.
Lord Callanan
I knew the Opposition would approve of that. I know that the noble Baroness will wish to speak to her Motion in a moment and so, if noble Lords will forgive me, I shall wait until my closing remarks to address it in full and to set out clearly how the Government will respond to it.
It also will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention that the vote in the other place tomorrow will not be the much-anticipated meaningful vote. As the Prime Minister has confirmed:
“When we achieve the progress we need, we will bring forward another meaningful vote, but if the Government have not secured a majority in this House in favour of a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration, the Government will make a statement on Tuesday 26 February and table an amendable motion relating to the statement, and a Minister will move that motion on Wednesday 27 February, thereby enabling the House to vote on it, and on any amendments to it, on that day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/19; col. 733.]
Noble Lords will clearly be aware of the statutory role that this House plays under the EU withdrawal Act, and debate will of course be necessary in this House also. The exact timings will be a matter for the usual channels. Nonetheless, as we proceed with today’s debate, I know that the work and the contributions of this House continue to play an important role in informing the deliberations and decisions of the other place. Indeed, the exit Secretary has made it his business from day one in office to work with this House and learn from the unparalleled collection of experience and expertise that resides on these Benches.
I am pleased that he was able to attend your Lordships’ EU Select Committee recently, and both of us met with Members on the Cross Benches earlier today. He is also meeting individual Peers from all sides of the House whenever he can, and his consistent message is that the Government want this House and its committees to continue contributing their wisdom as we shape our approach to the next phase of negotiations. The Constitution Committee heard similarly from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last week. I hope that this shows the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s commitment to fuller and deeper engagement with both Houses of Parliament.
Of course, this House is also very busy in its role of scrutinising and passing legislation. I noted the tweets yesterday morning from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which followed the appearance on the “Today” programme of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Commons. I agree that this House is playing a crucial role in considering both primary and secondary legislation. In the last fortnight alone, this House has considered three important Brexit Bills: the Trade Bill, the Financial Services Bill and the Healthcare Bill, which goes through Committee next week.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Does the Minister agree with what Andrea Leadsom said on the “Today” programme—that it is possible to get through all the legislation, the Bills and the statutory instruments, by the end of March?
Lord Callanan
I think that she said “all the necessary legislation”—so yes, I do agree with the comments that she made. As of today we have made positive progress and laid more than 420 statutory instruments out of the total of up to 600 required before exit day.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
Could the noble Lord tell us the difference between the “necessary” legislation and the legislation he has just described as “required”?
Lord Callanan
It means that we are confident that we can pass all of the necessary legislation required. I can only repeat the words that my right honourable friend used.
I also heard the remarks made yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that there is still much work to be done in scrutinising these instruments. That work is being done to an extremely high quality, and this House is doing the country a great service. I thank noble Lords for that. I pay tribute to her and to all the other members of the scrutiny committees, chaired by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. They have an intense workload.
I welcome the beginning of the European Union Committee’s work in considering the programme of international agreements that we are pursuing to ensure the greatest possible continuity, whether or not we are successful in securing the deal we all hope to achieve. The committee and its sub-committees are doing extremely valuable work, and we owe them also a debt of gratitude.
The Motion before us asks the House to take note of the ongoing discussions with the EU. My noble friend Lady Evans, the Leader of the House, set out yesterday the latest position when repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not test their patience by repeating that in detail. As they know, following the mandate given to her on 29 January, the Prime Minister visited Brussels last week, and, as she highlighted yesterday, both she and President Juncker have agreed that our teams should hold further talks to find a way forward.
Of course, the backstop is not something that we would ever want to use. In the event that it was implemented, we would only ever want it to be temporary. Given this, we consider it reasonable to ask for legally binding changes to reflect that temporary nature.
We are at a crucial point in the negotiations. As I have detailed, the Government are engaging with colleagues on all sides to help deliver a deal that the other place can support. This House has played, and will continue to play, a vital role in progressing the debate with scrutiny and expertise as we move into phase two of the negotiations, not least through wider exit preparations, including—as I touched on earlier—preparing our statute book for exit day. There are exit-related Bills and secondary legislation currently before the House and, as soon as possible after the other place has approved the deal, the withdrawal agreement Bill will be introduced to implement the withdrawal agreement in UK law. As we look forward, the Government are committed to ensuring that there is a greater say for Parliament in developing the mandate for the next phase of negotiations.
Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not seek to detain the House any further with an exposition of the Government’s policy, as we heard that yesterday. Today is an opportunity for noble Lords to expand on issues raised yesterday and perhaps even to raise some new ones that we have not heard before. I will of course endeavour to respond to as many of the issues raised as I can when I close the debate this evening. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, as ever we listen with great interest and expectation to the words of the Minister. Two weeks ago, having reflected on a quite crushing defeat in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister vowed to renegotiate and come back to Parliament with what, she said, would apparently be a better deal. As we edge closer to 29 March—there are now just 44 days to go—we were eagerly awaiting details of the progress made to date. But perhaps we should have known better than to expect anything of substance from the Prime Minister when her Statement was unexpectedly brought forward to yesterday afternoon. However, ever the optimist, I hoped we would hear the results of her mission to obtain legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement. If not that, perhaps Mrs May was going to announce that she would genuinely seek to build a cross-party consensus behind a different, more detailed political declaration. Yet on both counts yesterday, we were disappointed.
For the past week, we have waited with bated breath to see the Government’s Motion for today’s debate. Perhaps the delay was a good sign; perhaps it would be a substantive Motion that we could consider and debate. But it seems to have been drafted to rub salt into already weeping wounds. All it says is that,
“this House takes note of the ongoing discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union”.
This is a debate we could have had at any point during the past two years. The Motion says nothing, does nothing and therefore means nothing. While MPs hang around waiting for that meaningful vote, all the Government have to offer us today is a meaningless debate. So the purpose of my Motion—not an amendment, as the Minister said, but a separate Motion—is to provide some meaningful structure for our deliberations today.
For the benefit of the House, I will speak to both Motions together and although it might be a vain hope—as I said, I am ever the optimist—I would welcome government support for my Motion. The Minister shakes his head; perhaps I should not be surprised but he should not smile as he does so, as it will disappoint this House. Each and every time I make a proposal, I do so after consultation and discussion with colleagues across the House. I do that because I seek to be not controversial but constructive.
We want to find a way forward that can command broad support in your Lordships’ House and allow the Government to return to Brussels with something new to say—I am sure Mr Barnier would appreciate that. We want to rule out the catastrophe of crashing out on 29 March and ensure sufficient time for proper consideration of the legislation that is needed, or required, to deliver Brexit. We will also want to ensure that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act is not ripped up and tossed to one side. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
The Government’s Motion today, if taken alone, is inadequate. It asks us to take note of the ongoing discussions—but what discussions? According to media reports, EU officials were once again bewildered as the Prime Minister arrived for urgent meetings in Brussels without anything new to discuss with those whom she had requested to meet. Despite having received a constructive proposal from the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs May refuses to provide Parliament with an opportunity to vote on that proposal, while stubbornly clinging to those now discredited red lines.
Rather than listening yesterday, therefore, to the Prime Minister’s plea for more time, perhaps it would have been more fruitful for noble Lords to have gathered in a Brussels hotel bar. Hopefully, Mr Robbins was able to enjoy as many different Belgian beers as the Government have timetables for the next meaningful vote. Even as the ONS data shows slowing economic growth, with manufacturing performing as badly as at the onset of the financial crash, the Government continue to talk up a no-deal exit, and all we hear from Ministers is that the only way to prevent crashing out is to support the Prime Minister’s deal, even though she herself has already rejected part of it—the backstop.
Many noble Lords will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, interviewed on the “Today” programme last Friday. He laid out what we all know to be true. First, if the Government sought to rule out a no-deal exit at the end of March, both Parliament and the EU 27 would gladly facilitate this shift. Secondly, civil servants and local government are being forced to allocate limited resources to an outcome that, as we all know, would actively harm citizens, businesses and communities. The noble Lord also said that even if the Prime Minister was able to secure the changes she seeks, it is simply no longer possible for the Government to ensure an orderly exit from the EU on 29 March.
In that same programme, the shadow Chancellor again laid out the terms of Labour’s proposed alternative deal: a permanent and comprehensive customs union with the EU; close alignment with the single market, underpinned by shared institutions and obligations; dynamic alignment on a range of rights and protections; concrete commitments on future participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and greater clarity on future participation in EU security mechanisms and arrangements, including the European arrest warrant. [Interruption.] There seems to be some sort of sequence dancing going on in the Chamber at the moment.
This is a serious proposition that takes on board comments from both sides of both Chambers. It is an arrangement that the Government should allow Parliament the opportunity—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I am sure that the proposal from Her Majesty’s Opposition—that we should be part of a permanent customs union—is intended to be distinctive and different. But I am still trying to work out what, in practice, the difference is between what the Opposition seek and what the Government have negotiated, as stated in paragraph 23 of the political declaration: no tariffs, no fees, no charges, no quantitative restrictions and a single customs territory that permits no checks on rules of origin. All that falls within what paragraph 17 describes as,
“the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond that economic partnership”.
Going through it step by step, I find it difficult to see the difference. Where is it?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I think that was more of a speech than an intervention. There is, however, a clear and distinct difference. If the Government think, like the noble Lord, that it is the same, why do they not support our suggestion? That would be very straightforward. Our proposal is different. The same is true of common external tariffs, which my noble friend Lady Hayter will deal with at the end of the debate. If the Government are so concerned that our suggestion is the same as their suggestion, they can easily support our proposals. I would welcome the noble Lord’s support today. What is being put forward guarantees, and gets, broad support in both Houses. The way to test that is to put it to a vote in the House of Commons, to see if it commands the support of MPs in finding a meaningful way forward.
My Motion today, therefore, is intended to assist the Government. It recalls that this House, by substantial majorities, emphatically ruled out a no-deal exit and called on the Government to act accordingly; and it reflects the mood of the elected House, where MPs have twice voted against the principle of crashing out without an agreement. It asks the Prime Minister to take all steps necessary to ensure that we do not leave without a deal on 29 March. This could include seeking an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period, which would allow time to develop the political declaration in vital areas that have not been given the attention they deserve, such as security co-operation, and, echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to pass the legislation that is required, or necessary—he will decide which word to use—to give effect to the final withdrawal agreement.
It would be helpful and in the interest of your Lordships’ House if the Minister could directly address the comments made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the difference between legislation that is required by 29 March and that which is necessary. I am somewhat lost as to the distinction.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Could my noble friend ask the Minister to explain whether it is legislation necessary for a no-deal scenario or for a deal that has already been negotiated?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sure that the Minister has heard that, but I think that the Government have had some difficulty of their own in differentiating between what legislation is for a deal and what is for no deal. I am always delighted to receive any further clarification from the Minister, which I am sure the whole House would welcome.
I think we all understand that an extension to Article 50 would require the approval of the EU 27. However, faced with a choice between a limited extension to Article 50 and a no-deal Brexit, there is only one sensible option for both sides. Can the Government now stop dragging their feet, commit to asking for more time and therefore rule out once and for all, so that everybody knows, the most disastrous of all outcomes—a no-deal Brexit? Doing so would reassure citizens that they would not lose their basic rights, as well as businesses and communities. The fear of crashing out with no deal and of the consequences of that is not Project Fear; it is project reality. The Minister has to accept and understand those realities.
The Motion in my name also asks the Government to facilitate a further meaningful vote for MPs by the end of February and, as required under the EU withdrawal Act, to table a take-note Motion in your Lordships’ House. How timely this issue has now become. MPs will have the opportunity to vote on various amendments to a non-binding Motion tomorrow evening. That Motion was promised a fortnight ago to allow Government Whips to pick off potential rebels. Over the weekend, in an attempt to prevent a rebellion this week, the Communities Secretary committed to an extra vote by 27 February, confirmed by the Prime Minister yesterday. However, the exact nature of that vote will depend on the progress, or otherwise, of the negotiations. It could again, as will be the case tomorrow should there be a vote, be completely non-binding.
The Prime Minister is obviously trying to run down the clock and force a decision between her deal and no deal. We had confirmation of that Hobson’s choice last night, courtesy of ITV. It is only by securing a binding vote that MPs can apply the brake before we career off the cliff edge.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
The noble Baroness has been very free with her criticisms of the Government in the last few minutes, but I have not heard a squeak of criticism of the intransigence of the European Commission. Could she explain why that is?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I do not have much responsibility for the European Commission, but I would hope that we in this House have some influence on the Government. If we cannot as a House express our concerns about how the Government should conduct the negotiations in the interests of this country, for which the Government are responsible, we would not be doing our duty. I suggest to the noble Viscount that he pay a little more attention to what the Government are doing and try to get them to behave in a way that is in the interests of all the citizens of the UK, because they have a responsibility to negotiate on our behalf in the same way as the EU 27 are negotiating on behalf of their citizens.
I would prefer not to divide the House on my Motion tonight; that is a matter for the Government. I am not the only one—the noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred to it in the previous debate and earlier this week in Questions—who has struggled to understand why the Government have not simply accepted the previous two Motions that I have tabled without us having to push the House to a Division. They recognised the supremacy of the Commons and reflected the stated intentions of the Prime Minister. The Government say that they want to avoid a no-deal outcome and that they want to engage Parliament and swiftly secure MPs’ approval for the withdrawal agreement. My Motion does not undermine any of those proposals; it reinforces them. For the third time of asking, will the Government accept that this is a common-sense Motion, take all the necessary steps in relation to Article 50 and ensure that MPs are able to engage in a meaningful and timely manner?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this is our ninth debate or Statement on the Government’s withdrawal deal. I do not know about hell, but there may be a special place in purgatory reserved for those who were condemned to speak in them all.
Yesterday I suggested that the Prime Minister might be modelling herself on Mr Micawber and simply waiting for something to turn up to resolve her Brexit dilemma. But I wonder whether I might have been unfair to her. Perhaps she has a cunning plan. Perhaps she believes that the only way she can get a deal through the Commons is to wait until after the EU summit on 21 March before bringing back any new proposals that have been agreed and to give the Commons literally a matter of hours either to accept them or face a no-deal crash-out. She could reason that, by then, MPs would be panicked into voting for a deal that they believe is not in the best interests of the country for fear of an outcome that is even worse.
If they were to do so, they would knowingly have voted to make the nation poorer, to sever crucial security links and—despite the vainglorious outpourings of the Secretary of State for Defence—to reduce our global influence. They would do so knowing that the UK has the power unilaterally to revoke Article 50. They would do so with a clear majority of the country consistently indicating that they believe that leaving the EU on the Government’s terms—or, indeed, any terms—would be worse for them and their children’s future than remaining a member. Some 80% of the country now disapprove of the way in which the Government are handling the negotiations.
If, instead, 70% or 80% clearly wished to leave the EU on the Government’s terms, one could understand why MPs might go for that option. But, given that a large majority of MPs agree with the majority of the population that Brexit would be bad for the country, why might they vote for it? Why might Ministers, who know that the Government’s deal is bad for the country, vote for it? Why might those on the Government Front Bench in your Lordships’ House who know that it is bad for the country—they know who they are—vote for it? Why does it look quite possible that the Leader of the Opposition might facilitate it? What is everybody scared of?
We know that some are unwilling to go against the views of their constituents—although the number of constituencies where there is now a majority favouring leave has greatly diminished. We know that some of them are scared of deselection. We know that a small number feel physically intimidated. We know that some want Brexit to proceed and prove disastrous to the Conservatives as an electoral force, and hope to emerge victorious from the wreckage. All these motivations are understandable, but all too often they represent a willingness to put party and personal interest before that of the country. It is no wonder that so many voters have given up on the political class as a whole, or that the rest of the world simply thinks that we have gone mad.
In yesterday’s discussion of the Prime Minister’s Statement, I raised two areas where the Government’s approach, in my view, is particularly irresponsible. The first was the Minister’s assurance, repeated today, that they can get all necessary Brexit-related legislation through Parliament by 29 March. Leaving aside the mountain of statutory instruments, we have Bills to deal with on trade, healthcare, agriculture, fisheries and immigration—not to mention the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Bill—which I assume, unless the Minister says otherwise, are all necessary.
These Bills, on a conservative estimate, will take at least 20 days of debate to get through your Lordships’ House if we are to scrutinise them properly, as Ministers say they accept we should. There are currently 26 sitting days scheduled between now and the end of March, and on the majority of days for which we now have business, these Bills do not feature. There is also the mountain of SIs, which could take, at a normal rate of progress, another 20 days. So will the Minister tell the House which additional Fridays and weekend days the Government intend to schedule between now and the end of March to allow these Bills to be debated? Or do the Government envisage using some as yet unspecified emergency procedure? If he cannot do this, I can conclude only that the Government’s assertion about following proper parliamentary process over remaining Brexit legislation simply cannot be believed.
The second area of irresponsibility relates to business, the economy and the labour market. For me there are few consolations in the failure of the Government to reach an end-point on the Brexit negotiations sooner, but one consequence of the delay is that the true economic costs of Brexit are now beginning to emerge. At a macro level, last Monday’s economic figures, which the Chancellor admits were heavily influenced by Brexit, show growth at an anaemic level, investment down, the trade deficit up, despite the devaluation, and every commentator believing that the prospects for the year ahead are even bleaker. Businesses are viewing the Government’s approach with “weary horror”, to quote today’s Financial Times.
Examples of this abound. Yesterday, 30 food and drink industry groups asked the Government to suspend non-Brexit policy consultations because the staff who would be involved are trying desperately to provide advice on how Brexit might affect their members. Polling the association has undertaken has shown that 10% of the sector has said that, under a no-deal scenario, they would simply go out of business. Today, the British Chamber of Commerce said that,
“businesses risk being left hung out to dry”,
by the Government and have asked 20 urgent questions, to which the Government have as yet produced no reply. Perhaps I could ask the Minister just three of them on its behalf. First, what rules of origin will businesses need to comply with after Brexit? Secondly, how will the new customs procedures impact businesses? Thirdly, if a UK business is in dispute with an EU-based company after 29 March, which authority will settle that dispute?
While this kind of uncertainty afflicts businesses, the staffing crisis in the NHS intensifies. In a previous debate I referred to the number of Italian nurses who are leaving or contemplating leaving the UK to return home. They are now being joined by nurses from Spain who are fearful that, in the absence of a specific agreement, of which there is as yet no sign, their time working in the UK will no longer count as relevant experience when it comes to looking for jobs back in Spain, so their career prospects will be diminished. In one typical example, four Spanish theatre nurses at the Royal Bolton Hospital have said that they are planning to return to Spain in the near future to avoid this problem. These are nurses whom we simply cannot afford to lose.
We must accept that, as the parliamentary and economic crises of Brexit worsen on a daily basis, our ability in the Lords to affect events is limited. We have an obligation, however, to do what we can, and therefore I hope that noble Lords will support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, today. We on these Benches will continue to seek an end to the purgatory of the Brexit crises by giving people a chance to retain the strength and stability of our EU membership via a people’s vote.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, if you were to fly from Edinburgh to London Heathrow early on a Sunday evening—as I used to have to do week after week when I was serving in this House as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—you would find that shortly before you reach London the aircraft slows down and begins to turn gently to the right and progress in a circle. I believe it is called a holding pattern. We were told it was over a place called Bovingdon, which I was never able to identify from the air. At its western perimeter it extends to Aylesbury, which, from a height of 15,000 feet—first time around—looks quite interesting. You can see the line of the railway and the roadways all progressing in a north-westerly direction. As you come around for a second time and you look down at Aylesbury, you find that nothing has changed. It does not actually seem any more interesting than it was before. The third time around, you become really bored with Aylesbury, which is a delightful place to visit, I am sure, but nevertheless the process of going round and round in this circle is something that engenders various feelings: partly boredom, partly frustration and, for those who have deadlines to meet—a connecting flight, for example—increasing anxiety. One of the features of the holding pattern is that you, the passengers in this aircraft, are never told how long it is going to go on. Of course, an end is reached when there is an announcement, which I think goes like this: “Cabin crew: 10 minutes to landing”. At that point, you can be reasonably confident that the pilot, for her part, knows exactly where she is going.
I have not kept the same count as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but as far as I am concerned this is the third debate on the agreement that I have taken part in—the third turnaround in the holding pattern. So far as I can tell, we have the prospect of yet one more to come—another take-note debate and another vote, perhaps in two weeks’ time—and we have not yet been told that there are only five or 10 minutes to landing.
I think there is more than a grain of truth in that part of Mr Tusk’s carefully planned outburst, born of frustration, about,
“those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely”,
having something to answer for. As I did in this holding pattern, I feel a sense of increasing frustration, especially at the business we are doing in these weeks and in the forthcoming business weeks ahead. We are being fed on a diet of no-deal statutory instruments that most of us hope will never be used. When we look back, perhaps in six months’ time, we will come to realise that this—no doubt necessary—step has engendered an enormous waste of time and money. Leaving aside the debate as to whether the legislation is necessary or required, there is increasing concern, as we get closer to 29 March, that it will be more and more difficult to put through the legislation that surely has to be in place before Brexit. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I look forward very much to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has to say as to what that legislation is. I rather agree with the catalogue that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, gave us a few minutes ago.
All that having been said, on how we get out of the maze that surrounds us I remain of the view—which I have expressed at least twice before—that there is really not very much wrong with the agreement itself if the backstop issue can be sorted out in a way that will satisfy those parties that have genuine concerns about it. I for one detect some positive signs in the Prime Minister’s Statement, particularly as I raised the issue of language in an intervention some weeks ago. Particularly interesting, I thought, were the second and third steps she mentioned—that,
“there could be a legally binding time limit to the existing backstop”,
or that,
“there could be a legally binding unilateral exit clause”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/19; col. 731.]
Arguing for these solutions is not going to be easy and may well take time, but it is not quite as far-fetched as some might think that a solution by one or other of those means might be reached. I suggest that the line would be to fasten on the assurances that are already there in the protocol. Article 1.4 states that:
“The provisions of this Protocol are … intended to apply only temporarily”;
I emphasise “only temporarily”. Article 2.1 states that:
“The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours”—
I emphasise those words—
“to conclude, by 31 December 2020, an agreement which supersedes this Protocol in whole or in part”.
Article 6.1 states that “a single customs territory”, which was at the centre of the arrangement, “shall be established”, but only until the “future relationship becomes applicable”. Especially, there is the overriding obligation in part 1 of the agreement at Article 5: the obligation of good faith.
We need to remember that the obligation of good faith carries much more weight in civil law systems than it seems to do in ours. In civil law, it is a principle about the implementation of a contract which can be enforced. There is no such general concept in English common law, which tends to regard good faith as a rather vague concept, not carrying very much weight. I hope we can build on the civil law concept and the language to which I have drawn attention already. The language is already in the agreement, after all. The case can be built on what is already there. I am glad to hear that the Attorney-General, who tended to underplay these points in his earlier advice, is now an active member of our negotiating team.
If something useful can be obtained out of this, what then? Accepting the agreement still seems to me the best way out of a highly unsatisfactory situation. Those who favour this course can only hope that this will achieve majority support before time runs out. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in the first part of her Motion, that we must stress yet again that a no-deal situation is wholly unacceptable.
Looking ahead, the political agreement is troublesome—long on aspiration, painfully short on detail. As the Prime Minister herself said, it is not legally binding and provides for a spectrum of outcomes. It is far short of the framework that Article 50 contemplates, and negotiations will not be made any easier by the fact that if we reach that stage we will already be outside the EU.
There is much force in the point made by a former Cabinet Secretary last week that there is a real danger here unless we are given a clearer idea of the eventual destination by those who are supposed to be in charge of our affairs. Much hard thinking has to be done behind the scenes to work out a plan for that stage—not just a sketch of the plan, as Mr Tusk contemplated—that will command majority support as we set off into these negotiations. It will not be easy, but it is a very necessary step.
As already mentioned, time is patently too short for all the pre-Brexit legislation to be put through, whatever one makes of it. Insisting that we leave on 29 March looks more and more absurd, given that there is such a powerful case against a Brexit with no deal. A sharper attention to the timetable is necessary, which is the subject of the second part of the noble Baroness’s Motion. However, if one gives effect to what that Motion contemplates, it will leave us with only four weeks—just 16 sitting days—to get all the business done. The number of days shrinks time and again as we look at them. Surely the exit date must now be postponed.
If we are to ask for that, or if it is offered to us, we must have a clear idea as to what any extension is designed to achieve. I hope that although much effort is still to be concentrated on discussions about the agreement, a real and genuine effort is put in to working out a sound and convincing argument for an extension. That needs to be a detailed plan so that the timing of the extension can be guided by what needs to be done. After all, we cannot expect to be given a second chance. It would be a real tragedy if we were to fall short on that point and end up by default with a chaotic Brexit.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said in his excellent speech. If this goes on much longer I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will run out of jokes and perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, out of apposite analogies.
As the Commons struggles it its paralysing three-way trap and the search goes on for the holy grail of alternative arrangements, the question again is how your Lordships can best help with advice on escape hatches, if any exist. The position has now been clarified and reclarified to the point of almost total unintelligibility. Either there is an Article 50 delay—short, medium or long—although for what purpose no one openly has an answer, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, emphasised; or there is the so-called crash-out, managed or otherwise; or, the best hope, the withdrawal agreement treaty scrapes through at the end of February or the end of March, still unopened but somehow reinterpreted by a codicil or instrument to make it temporary and conform to the consent required under the Good Friday agreement, a point that often tends to be overlooked. The device being examined for that is called a joint interpretive instrument which can be attached to the treaty. So that is what is behind the withdrawal agreement.
Behind the delay lobby is the obvious wish for another referendum, which we have heard about, although the questions remain of who knows where that would lead, what it would settle and whether the legislation to launch it could ever pass through the other place.
Behind the no deal, walk away or crash-out option on WTO terms, we have the assurance of my noble friend Lord Lilley that there are 30 reasons not to worry. Unfortunately there are many others who have at least 30 more reasons to worry a great deal—not least farmers, most of industry and business, the police and many other major concerns of this nation.
As for the withdrawal agreement scraping through before the end of March, behind that is the hope that both the EU negotiators and, here at home, the famous ERG diehards in the other place will all yield a bit and make concessions, along with 50 or 60 Labour MPs who are said to be now seeing sense, or so I read.
On top of this, we now have the letter of the leader of the Opposition, Mr Corbyn, to the Prime Minister asking for agreement on “a permanent customs union”. It is a pity that he did not ask instead for an evolving customs partnership because that in the end is what we are going to get. Not only do customs authorities in and out of the EU co-operate closely all the time anyway but most goods travel under simplified procedures.
However, more than that, behind the Corbyn letter there is an alarming and pitiful ignorance—admittedly widely shared by many Members of Parliament and the media—about the radically changed nature of all trade today and of the real meaning of a customs union in modern conditions. This is where your Lordships can help—if we can get heard above the cacophony of disagreements in the other place. The McKinsey Global Institute reminds us that today—and even more tomorrow—most international trade is not going to involve customs machinery at all. Already the bulk of both service trade and just-in-time import trade is conducted without any reference whatever to customs unions or customs delays.
Services do not do customs or customs unions. Services which are not traded through frontiers at all already constitute more value in global trade than goods. This dominance of services, which have grown 60% faster than goods trade in the past 10 years, is completely obscured by traditional trade statistics. The conventional statistics—last year’s Bradshaw, as the late Harold Macmillan would have described them—fail to track soaring cross-border flows of digital services and intangible assets between affiliates which are becoming a huge part of the trade picture. I do not know who does the research for Labour or advises the excellent but obviously frustrated Sir Keir Starmer, but they should get on top of this.
In short, the whole idea of a permanent customs union with the EU, which Mr Corbyn is calling for, is becoming marginal to boosting our trade and, therefore, our jobs in the digital age. As the Governor of the Bank of England was saying this morning, there is indeed a new order in cross-border commerce lying ahead. By the end of the two-year transitional period, if the withdrawal agreement allows, it will be even more so. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, whose speeches on this matter are always a treat that I enjoy, will be able to tell us exactly where Labour has got to on this new situation. We have heard nothing about it so far.
The other area where Commons experts plainly need help is in their mistaken conviction that the EU today is a fixed system on a fixed path. In fact, the old EU model is being rapidly overtaken by all the obvious pressures of digitalisation, notably populism, massive centrifugal forces and decentralisation—all causing what the New Statesman, which I do not often quote, calls a new European schism. Eastern and central Europe are breaking with Brussels, southern “Club Med” Europe is rejecting the north, I now read that the French are withdrawing their ambassador from Italy, and Greece has been putting on trial its chief statistician for the crime of telling the truth. As for the core of EU countries, France—our long-standing ally and friend—magnificent Germany, also now our good friend, are both in deep stress and political instability. We should be working out how to assist them instead of arguing with them over outdated trade practices.
Ireland, too, should be our closest friend these days, not our opponent. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who made that point the other day. This is a close neighbour that is now richer than us in terms of per capita income, is increasingly ready to forget old bitterness, faces undoubted dilemmas with which we should strongly sympathise, and actually wants to engage more closely with the Commonwealth and stick closely to the Good Friday agreement, as well as the common travel area and a dozen other relationships that both sides should treasure.
All in all, the Brexit situation ought to be perfectly able to be handled by a properly informed and functioning Parliament ready to support a step-by-step approach into the utterly changed conditions lying ahead—the first step being precisely what the withdrawal agreement, maybe with some codicils, offers, as my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out a few minutes ago.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am doing my best to follow the noble Lord’s argument. I do not entirely understand what a widening customs partnership is. It is an unclear concept. We all agree that in a digital age and where standards and regulations are at least as important as tariffs, we are in a different world. When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister 30 years ago, she accepted that having a single market was more important than being in a customs union. Can the noble Lord explain how a widening customs partnership would deal with the harmonisation of standards and regulations, which—I think he is arguing—are more important than customs these days?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The explanation would take longer than the time I have available. I shall share it with the noble Lord afterwards but the basic point is that services are the expanding side of international trade. Standards have to be negotiated with America, the European Union and so on, and within the EU of course, but also with all the great new markets of Asia, Africa and Latin America, where the big expansion of services will be. There never was a clear single market in services. We hoped for it but it never worked. We face the same problem there as we are facing throughout the world. It is perfectly straightforward that in this area old-fashioned customs arrangements affect only solid physical goods; they are a declining part of the system. Therefore, concern with old-fashioned arrangements is becoming less relevant.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
I follow a great deal of what the noble Lord said but physical goods still have to cross the border, and I am not sure what solution he has for that on the Irish border.
Lord Howell of Guildford
That is a different question. What we are talking about here is whether one is in or out of a customs union with the single market. I am saying that it matters a great deal less than it did. I can produce a long list of statistics showing that it is becoming less important.
Turning to the Irish border, I have always argued, as a lot of people have argued, that it does not need future technology. At present there is an invisible border but considerable differences between the Republic and the north in a variety of things. That can continue. There can be additional policing, authorised transport and all the rest of the things that we have discussed in this House which can deliver over the next two years, unless we are very stupid, a perfectly adequate invisible border. It can be done, and a great many people know it can be done. The argument about the backstop is absurd because no one ever wants to reach that point, as the noble Lord recognised.
In my view, the Brexit situation should be perfectly manageable. Next time it comes up in the House of Commons, it should be made a vote of confidence. If—I repeat “if”—regrettably this Parliament still votes it down and cannot agree on any way forward, and therefore is failing the people, the only course is for the people to elect a new Parliament, for which a short Article 50 extension would be needed and would be granted. Like it or not, and want it or not—and it does not sound as though the Opposition want it now—that is the way that parliamentary democracy works. Just in case, I gather that 6 June has been pencilled in as the appropriate date.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell, because I have known him for many years and he brings a great deal of wisdom and food for thought to our deliberations.
The UK is the prototype of a nation utterly dependent on its relationship with the world. This calls for statesmanship, vision and imagination to meet the challenges involved. Traditional experienced diplomacy is at a premium. This contrasts with petulant, arrogant, defiantly confrontational language, of which we hear too much. We have been repeatedly told that Britain will want to have a positive, warm relationship with Europe, whatever the outcome of our present negotiations. I fail to see how the language being used at the moment can possibly be preparing the way for that kind of positive relationship. It is not the way to win friends and influence.
We need a bit of perspective. The UK joined the Common Market of its own volition at the time of the Heath Government. It confirmed its membership of the European Community in the referendum under the Wilson Government. We must face the reality that, whatever the emphasis on economic policy and the economic implications, the whole drive for Europe has been political right from its inception at the time of the European Coal and Steel Community. Economic integration is vital, but it is not an end in itself and it has never been seen as an end in itself. It has always been seen as the means to build security, peace and certainty for the future of the European continent.
The challenges facing the world at the moment are immense: the new aggressive foreign policy of Russia; the uncertainty and volatility caused by the Trump Administration; the sinister extremist development of European ultra-nationalism in Poland and, sadly, in Italy, not to mention the reflections of them from time to time in elements of our society; the faltering Chinese economy; the Gulf; climate change; and migration, to which climate change is closely related. We are constantly debating immigration here, but we very seldom face up to the issue of how the scale of migration can be met effectively.
I say to my friends on the left that I also believe there is a tremendous challenge to Europe to develop a social agenda, rather than just economic discipline. Britain could play a major role in that. Above all, we should be in the midst of it all, fighting the battle and carrying the banner of unyielding commitment to social justice.
This past weekend, I have been rereading—not for the first time—the very absorbing biography of Sir Brian Urquhart, who will be 100 next month. He has served the UN with outstanding skill and commitment since its earliest days at Church House across the road. His memoirs are worth reading: indeed, one Under-Secretary at the UN has suggested that every new member of UN staff should be given a copy of this book and read it before starting their work.
I do not want to dwell on his UN record but on the earlier parts of his biography. He was clearly a very brilliant and able young man. In the Second World War, he found himself serving in the airborne division as chief intelligence officer. He became increasingly disturbed by the effort going into preparing for the Arnhem operation. He felt that this was becoming very dangerous. He used his authority and powers of persuasion to have some Spitfires from the RAF fly at tree-top level, taking photographs of the area where the parachute regiment was due to land. The photographs were very vivid: they completely upheld his analysis that the regiment was about to parachute into the arms of the Panzer division. The tanks and armoured vehicles were under the trees, exactly in the landing area.
He insisted on seeing General Browning, who was in charge of the operation, to show him this evidence. He had already been arguing his case for a long time, not always to his senior officers’ pleasure. Browning looked at it and the conversation came to an end. Sir Brian got back to his office and was rather surprised when the regiment’s chief medical officer came to see him. He said, “Urquhart, we all admire your professional skills, but you have been working too hard. You are under acute psychological strain at the moment. You are to go on sick leave”. Urquhart replied, “Sick leave at this moment?”—it was two days before the planned operation. He asked, “What if I refuse to go on sick leave?” The chief medical officer said, “Be careful or you’ll be court-martialled”. In utter dismay, he went to his home in Sussex, and one can imagine what he suffered there as over the next two or three days he watched unfold exactly what he had predicted.
I want to conclude with what Sir Brian says in his book about that powerful episode. He says that as a young man he had persuaded himself that logical argument and rational discussion, backed by irrefutable fact, could prevail, whatever the situation. However, he became totally disillusioned about that, saying that it was “utter nonsense”. When a group of people with dedication and single-mindedness are determined to do something, they will not listen. They will not look at the evidence in front of them, and this becomes increasingly true when personal ambition is involved. I find that story very powerful, because at Arnhem 17,000 allied soldiers died, were wounded or went missing. Instead of the end of the war being speeded up, as was the rationale for the operation, it was delayed.
There comes a point in human affairs when you have to say, “Stop”. I do not think that we have been saying “Stop” loudly enough. We have allowed ourselves to get tangled up in all sorts of legal arguments, when more or less all the evidence indicates that coming out of Europe is a disaster. I find it absolutely unacceptable that we, as a responsible Assembly, can contemplate that as the way forward and are not prepared to say that we cannot possibly go ahead with this operation without the specific endorsement of the British people. Another referendum is therefore indispensable—one in which the facts and the knowledge which we have acquired and which is now much more available are put before the people. We are going to carry a heavy responsibility into the future. Now is the time to start talking straight.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I have not spoken in a Brexit debate until now because I did not think there was any point. What I might have said would have been said dozens of times before, and I do not suppose that whatever I say here today will have the slightest effect on the outcome. However, on this occasion, I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister a question.
Before I start, I should say that I voted to leave in the referendum. Indeed, I voted to leave in 1975 as well. Before we joined the Common Market, Britain had 100% control over its destiny and its laws, rules and regulations. The reason I voted to leave in 1975 was that I thought there would be a loss of sovereignty and, like the vast majority of Brexiteers, the reason I voted to leave in 2016 was to regain that sovereignty. I know that remainers cannot understand why Brexiteers voted to leave, just as Brexiteers cannot understand why remainers voted to stay, but we are where we are. What we need to do now is find a way through this quagmire that is in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
We are told that if we do not vote for Theresa May’s deal, there is a danger of us crashing out with no deal—falling off the cliff edge, which we have heard again today. I am not sure that we need to fall off a cliff edge if there is no deal, because under Article XXIV of the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the United Kingdom and Europe would be allowed to continue with the zero-tariff, zero-quota trading arrangements after 29 March. As the EU enjoys a £95 billion surplus with the UK, I cannot see why it would not welcome such an arrangement.
However, there are conditions. First, both parties have to agree to this standstill arrangement covering all goods trade, but could then negotiate at a later date a more comprehensive free trade agreement covering services and so on. This might not solve everything, but it should ease some of the fears about a cliff edge. Secondly, both parties must be in negotiations for a free trade agreement. It is on this point that I can see the Minister saying why we cannot invoke Article XXVI. He might say, “We have tried to negotiate a deal. Negotiations have failed, they have broken down, and because they have, we will not be able to invoke Article XXIV; hence, we are leaving without a deal”. I disagree. Just because the first deal put on the table is unacceptable does not mean that the second one will be—if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. That is exactly the point of Article XXIV: to reduce the disruption while negotiations continue.
I understand that the Department for International Trade is investigating the possibility of invoking Article XXIV. I also understand that the Malthouse compromise envisages as plan B, in the absence of a formal withdrawal agreement, a basic interim agreement with the EU using Article XXIV. However, it is disappointing that the Department for Exiting the European Union is silent on Article XXIV. I can understand the political reasons why No. 10—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I draw his attention to a briefing by the House of Commons Library from last week, No-deal Brexit and WTO: Article 24 Explained. Briefly, it makes it clear that if you have no deal, you cannot invoke Article XXIV. It is about interim application with a view to a full trade agreement. If you crash out with no deal, you are not negotiating a full trade agreement. Anyway, apparently no interim agreements have been registered with the WTO since 1995, because they can be objected to.
Earl Cathcart
I think I have just explained exactly that point. Just because the first deal is unacceptable, does not mean that the next deal will be. Negotiations will continue.
I was saying that I can understand the political reasons why No. 10 would want to keep Article XXIV under wraps, because talking about its possibility in public would reduce MPs’—and, indeed, noble Lords’—fears about no deal. This would make no deal considerably less frightening and therefore lessen the chances of the Prime Minister’s deal being passed. I ask the Minister: what discussions have the Government had with Brussels, and indeed the World Trade Organization, about the possibility of invoking Article XXIV, to ensure that we meet all the necessary conditions? Where there is a will, there is a way.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I regret that I will be unable to follow the noble Earl, because I still believe that leaving the EU is a bad mistake. Mr Tusk was right to say that the remain group—those who did not want to leave and those who want a second referendum—are in trouble because we lack leadership. We need a rallying point, but your Lordships will excuse me if I do not go over those arguments.
This is a strange and fairly terrible moment in the history of this country. We are so conditioned by the events of the last two years that we are no longer surprised that the fate of this country is still undecided, six weeks before Brexit is due to take effect. We still do not know whether we are going to remain, crash out, or do a deal. All we know is that Brexit means Brexit—we are no further forward. What we lack is any mechanism for ensuring that it is not chaotic. I share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Butler and others about the massive overhang of legislation and statutory instruments we face. We cannot deal with them in the time left, and it is becoming more and more unconvincing that we will be able to deal with that load in 26 working days, except by allowing the Government a measure of almost despotic Henry VIII powers, which are wholly unacceptable in normal times and set a precedent which should worry us. The role of this House in ensuring that those proposed powers are properly examined and limited is vital. There is a temptation to think that because the press do not report us, we are unimportant. We have a key role to play in examining legislation over the next six weeks. I personally will do my best to be here to vote and to ensure that we do what we can to keep whatever has to be done within reasonable limits.
I have a second worry, which is about my old profession: the Civil Service. Civil servants are keen to do their best for the Government of the day. Do not believe anyone who says anything different. They want to say, “Yes, Minister”. They want to offer a solution to every problem that their political masters offer them, but the scale and complexity of what is being undertaken at the moment is beyond the comprehension of any of us. I was in charge of two government departments before I became Cabinet Secretary, and our relationship with the EU permeated every aspect of our daily life. To try to rewrite that in the next few weeks is almost impossible, and to try to deal simultaneously with two possible outcomes—crashing out and doing a deal—is both a terrible complication of the task and quite possibly beyond their competence. The Civil Service is being asked to do something which no civil service could do. It will do its best but it is almost certain that some awful things will go wrong. My plea is that the political reaction should not be one of blaming the Civil Service but of understanding the scale of the task that it has been set, and for concerns to be focused at the political level, where people can defend themselves, not on people who are unable to defend themselves and have been doing an honourable attempt to implement a colossal task.
Nobody is going to get what they want from this Brexit saga. The Brexiteers are not going to get what they want. I think the Brexit dream is slowly dying. I fear we remainers may not get what we want, although I should be delighted if some deus ex machina emerges in the final squeeze. I do not think that the scale of what has been done will give business what it wants; I think it will find itself without the certainty it needs. I do not think that the people who wanted to restrict immigration will get what they want. It is quite normal in political affairs for nobody to get what they want, but on this scale it is worth noting.
What we will get is change. We are spending far too much time, because of the Brexit debate, on things that are not of major importance. The ship of state is becalmed. Nothing is going on in government to deal with the big issues facing the country domestically, such as the NHS or universal credit, because all the energy is going into Brexit. Beyond that, the world around us is changing. We think Brexit is the big issue, but the really big issues include the tension between America and China, which will dominate the world over the next 10, 20 or 30 years; there are big issues in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, superbly illustrated. We should be part of the solution to these problems, not making them worse by leaving. Technology is changing. I chaired two workshops recently which left me breathless about the scale of change that is coming, which people do not know about. A good example is quantum computing, which will alter computing in the next 20 to 30 years. It will have huge industrial consequences. The world in which we do business, operate and co-operate with other countries will alter. Our energies should be there, instead of us going round in circles and exhausting ourselves with exchanges on subjects that few of us fully understand.
I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. The no-deal proposition is terrible and I cannot see why it cannot be ruled out in the national interest. What matters now is the interest not of parties, but of the people on the street—the citizens of this country. History will examine what we do very critically. The eye of history is on our generation. The people who will pay the price and who will write the history are the young. I do not think they will be kind. We should prepare ourselves for some very sharp criticism of the period we are in. The best we can do is to argue for what we believe to be right in the national interest and, as Members of the House of Lords, to examine the Executive and hold them to account with all our best ability and strength.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. I have enormous sympathy with just about every word he uttered. Like others, I contribute to the debate yet again with a heavy heart and deep regret that we find ourselves in this position. Once again, I find myself supporting the noble Baroness’s Motion and urging my noble friends on the Front Bench to accept it without putting it to a vote.
We are here to take note of the ongoing discussions—not negotiations, just discussions—taking place within the EU following our Article 50 notification. Why are we noting anything about discussions? The EU has made it clear that negotiations are over, on terms agreed and signed off by the Prime Minister and our team. What are we to make of this? We seem determined to break bonds with our nearest neighbours, to all our costs. We persist with apparently running down the clock, threatening no deal up to the last day, expecting the EU to cave in to whatever we demand. It is just not going to happen. The Prime Minister’s Statement says that she continues,
“to work with Members across the House to do everything we can to help build a country that works for everyone”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/19; col.732.]
If that really is the aim, persisting with a no-deal route, keeping business in the dark about its future and risking people’s jobs and livelihoods by refusing to listen even to Parliament’s instruction that we must not leave without a deal is totally inconsistent with those aims.
Yes, it is true, as the Prime Minister says, that opposing no deal is not enough to stop it. But securing a deal is not the only way to stop us crashing out without one. We have the unilateral power to revoke Article 50. It is within our control. The Prime Minister says that public faith in our democracy will be damaged if Parliament ignores the result of the 2016 referendum. How could anyone seriously pretend that we have ignored that result? What is being ignored, to the detriment of trust in our Government and parliamentary leadership, is that the promises made at the time of the referendum cannot and will not be delivered. Yet the premise of the course that we are set on is that this is the will of the people. How do we know that this is what the majority of the country actually wants?
The Prime Minister says we must all hold our nerve to get the changes Parliament requires and to deliver Brexit on time. But the EU has made it clear that it will not drop the backstop. Indeed, if border checks are solved by technology, as the ERG has repeatedly suggested, what is the fuss about the backstop? It will never be needed.
Plan B, the Malthouse compromise, has been roundly rejected by trade experts. They have had to explain—as has the parliamentary Library, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out—that WTO law does not allow the UK and the EU to keep trading as if the UK were still in the EU.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
The noble Lady asked what the fuss was about the backstop. Perhaps I may explain in one sentence. It is a constitutional point, not a point about customs. Any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland has to respect the terms of an international agreement, the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. That agreement specifies no constitutional change without consent. I do not know what conversations are going on, but if the noble Baroness reads the present version of the backstop agreement, she will discover that it does not respect the Good Friday agreement. This, in my view, has been an error both by our Government and by the EU.
Baroness Altmann
I bow to the noble Baroness’s superior knowledge. However, it has been constantly and consistently the issue that, unless there is a frictionless border in Northern Ireland, there is a problem.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve
Nobody is arguing for a return to what is somewhat confusedly referred to as a “hard border”. There is agreement between the EU, the UK and the Republic of Ireland that there should be what is confusedly called a “soft border”. That is not the problem. The problem is about the constitutional status of a part of the United Kingdom. That is why people are so angry and so worried about the backstop, and why there have already been a good deal of incipient attempts at violence in Northern Ireland, which mercifully did not kill anybody.
Baroness Altmann
Perhaps we need to pursue this further but my understanding is that if there is technology which can ensure a frictionless border, the practical problems could be dealt with.
However, the Malthouse compromise—plan B—also falls foul of this problem: that it is impossible under WTO law for the UK and the EU to keep trading as if the UK is a member state while negotiating a free trade agreement for the future. On that basis, I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Cathcart appears to be mistaken.
Like many other countries we are in the grip of populism, whose success is based on promoting beguilingly simple soundbites and solutions to hugely complex problems. Populist leaders know that they cannot actually deliver these simplistic slogans. All that they need is for people to believe slogans such as, “Take back control”, “More money for our priorities”, “Free trade deals, easy peasy”, “Make Britain great again” and “Have your cake and eat it”. The referendum promises were never honest; they were designed to seduce people into a fantasy world of sunlit uplands, and they succeeded, but those running the leave campaign had no actual plan for how they would manage the country after Brexit. Indeed, the whole Brexit programme is based on a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of how the commercial world operates. Is this naive ignorance by politicians who have never run businesses or conducted trade negotiations, or do they just not understand or care about the legal realities?
I cannot believe that the principles of the Conservative Party—pragmatism, supporting business and jobs—are being sacrificed on the altar of an ideological fantasy, with its sacred duty to break 40 years of success. We have reckless brinkmanship and there is a reliance on railroading Parliament into acquiescence, even with the prospect of no deal. The path we are on is conducted by people who have got everything wrong so far about Brexit, about how the EU works and about how international trade operates. David Davis claimed that he could get a free trade agreement by going to Berlin, where they would be desperate to protect BMW. Liam Fox claimed that he would have 70 deals ready to roll on 30 March, on the same terms as before. The public were assured that we could have a final deal on the future relationship agreed in two years. The ERG insisted that we could leave the customs union and single market, and still have no hard border in Northern Ireland. None of these was ever realistic. Even the claims that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration will mean taking back control of our borders, laws and money cannot be relied upon, with all the difficult decisions being left to future negotiations after we have left.
The only aim seems to be to leave the EU, whatever the cost. The Government’s own figures prove that leaving the EU will make the country poorer, while leaving without any agreement will demolish our industrial success. We will lose thousands of businesses and jobs. It is not too late to go back to the British people with an honest reassessment of the false promises which they have been led to believe. It is not too late to give the country the chance to confirm that people are happy to proceed or have changed their minds. This is about not just trade but our whole way of life: our children’s future, our freedom and rights, our national security. So much is at risk. I am in favour of co-operation and partnership. But we must take care that at this crucial stage in the negotiations we are not just railroaded into leaving the EU, come what may, without checking back with the British people.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I listened with some interest and considerable agreement to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. I cannot, however, go along with his final enthusiastic flourish: that we must continue to argue for what we believe in. I say that not because I do not argue for what I believe in, but because both sides of this argument have been arguing for what they believe in for the past few years and we have not got to any agreement—or even increased understanding of each other. This is a phenomenon not just of this country, but a global one: countries and communities are split down the middle because people are arguing for what they believe in, come what may.
I am quite used to that. I am used to people taking to weapons because of what they believe in. I have spent a good deal of my life trying to persuade people to look beyond what they believe in to a better future for their shared community. I agree largely with the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. However, it means two quite different things among the people supporting it. Some say that they will not leave the European Union without an agreement—and they want an agreement. Others say that they will not leave the European Union without an agreement, while rather hoping that there will not be one, so that they will not have to leave. We need to be a little more straightforward if we are to find any resolution in the interests of our country.
There has been a good deal of talk about the backstop, and I will focus on that, because there is a considerable lack of understanding about what is involved. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, pointed out, the key issues are not those that many people speak about. I hear many people speaking about the Good Friday agreement, but quite a number of them have not read it, or if they have read it they have not understood it, or if they have understood it they are disingenuous about it and are using it to promote one side or other of a Brexit argument that has nothing to do with it.
What happened with the agreement? First, the British and Irish Governments realised that they had been poles apart for a long time, and that that was not in the best interests of either country. They agreed to come together to build a new relationship, and reach a political agreement that will provide a basis for that. The basis was not the Good Friday agreement but the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985, which was a very flawed process. I will not revisit that—I see the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, nodding his head—but it brought the British and Irish Governments together at the level of Prime Ministers, Ministers and civil servants, over a period, to build and develop a relationship with each other. That enabled, in the context of the European Union, and with the support of our friends in the United States, a new agreement to be produced—the Belfast agreement of 1998. That addressed the disturbed relationships within Northern Ireland, between north and south, and between Britain and Ireland.
Let us be clear, however: the key relationship was between London and Dublin—between the British and Irish Governments. That was the driver that kept it going, and when they forgot about that it was a disaster. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is not in his place but he, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others will remember those occasions when Bertie Ahern, as Taoiseach, allowed Mr Gerry Adams and his colleagues to go to Dublin and start external negotiations, and then the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, went to London to talk to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The whole process began to fall into disarray. Some of us had to publicly call for them to come back to Belfast, to the chairmanship of George Mitchell, to try to reach an understanding. The key thing was to keep the British and Irish Governments together.
When, therefore, I hear people saying that the British and Irish Governments cannot negotiate on questions like the backstop without doing it through Brussels, I do not find it easy to believe. Brussels never complained when the British and Irish Governments were negotiating on Irish border issues; on the contrary, they took pride in the fact that it was being done, that the model of the European Union was being adopted, and that funds could be made available to promote it. The reason that we are having this problem is that the British Government, having dealt with the Irish problem, did what the British Government usually do with the Irish problem; that is, ignore it and hope that it will now go away, and not pay proper attention to the Irish Government and their relationship with them. What then happens? Surprise, surprise, a decade on, they run into difficulties.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The noble Lord said that Brussels did not intervene in the negotiations at an earlier phase. The reason was perfectly simple. It was that both the United Kingdom and Ireland were in the single market; they were in the European Union together, and there was nothing for Brussels to intervene about. That is not now the situation.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, as far as I am aware, they are both still in those places. They may be negotiating to go out of them, but they are still currently in them. If Brussels does not want any help, it may find itself creating problems rather than finding solutions. That is not in anybody’s interest.
In terms of the Good Friday agreement—I was part of the negotiation—neither the British Government nor the Irish Government bothered to fulfil the requirement of the British-Irish side for meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which did not meet for a decade. Is that not evidence that London was not paying proper attention to the relationship with Dublin?
What about Dublin? It is absolutely clear that the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, decided that, rather than act as a bridge between the United Kingdom and the European Union, he would line up with Europe and act as a bulwark for the European Union against the United Kingdom. It was not for the first time, and not for the first time has it been a disaster. Historically, every time Ireland has lined up with the rest of Europe against England, rather than Britain or the United Kingdom, it has always ended up being let down, from Roger Casement to Wolfe Tone. Every time they depended on people from outside to help in the relationship, it was historically disastrous. England’s difficulty was rarely Ireland’s opportunity; it was more often Ireland’s difficulty as well, and that is the danger that we are in at the moment.
The British and Irish Governments need to work much more closely together and engage with Brussels. Is there some practical way in which it could be done? I hear lots of people say that all these things are impossible; I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that had the people negotiating in Belfast, Dublin and Brussels been in Belfast 20 years ago, we would never have had a Good Friday agreement, because they would have said, “It’s all impossible. The IRA will never do this. The unionists will never do that”. But we got there, right at the end of the time. How did we do that? First, we built relationships. We did not stand shouting abuse at one another. We started to talk. Then we set to the side high principle and started talking about the practicalities. When we asked unionists whether we could have cross-border bodies or, as republicans would have said, all-Ireland bodies, the unionists said, “No, you can’t have that”. We said, “Hang on a second. We’ve actually been co-operating for 40 or 50 years on the question of fisheries in the Foyle because the fish pay no attention to the border and just go backwards and forwards. Could we do something now on other issues?” “Ah”, the answer was, “if they’re practical issues, we can”.
When Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness wrote a joint letter in 2016 to the Prime Minister, they pointed out some of those practicalities. They said, “What are the issues?” In terms of the economy, which has been mentioned, there are basically two. One is agriculture and agri-food business; the other is energy, particularly electricity. What if the British and Irish Governments came together and said, “We’ve reached an agreement. Because it’s an island, it’s a natural quarantine. We’ve got to look after animal health and plant health. We’ll deal with agriculture and agri-food business on an island-wide basis. We’ve got good traceability and we’ll work together on those things. We’ve got an electricity grid which is for the island as a whole and, by the way, we’ll reach agreement that we are not going put any nuclear reactors on the island of Ireland. Could you let us deal with those things on an all-Ireland basis, because that’s the vast majority of the problem?” I think that quite a lot of unionists, as long as it was seen not as a constitutional but a practical issue, would say, “Okay, let’s talk about that; we can maybe do that”. As Ian Paisley famously pointed out, the people are British but the cows are Irish. So we can do a little bit on the agricultural side.
People on both sides of the border already know where they should be paying their taxes to—they do not always do it but they know where they should be paying them to. If you are taking a load of petrol from Belfast to Dublin or, much more interestingly, a load of Guinness from Dublin to Belfast, you know perfectly well that taxation is different on the two sides of the border, whether or not you are in the EU. You still have to pay your taxes, and it is traceable.
If we deal with the practical realities, we can find ways of resolving these problems, perhaps quite quickly. But they need to take place in a context where people want to reach an agreement, not frustrate an agreement, for whatever reason and whatever background they come from.
It has been said clearly that time is short. The reassuring thing is this: two months before we reached the Belfast agreement, Sinn Féin had not even put forward a proposal for a Northern Ireland Assembly; less than two months later, we had a Good Friday agreement. It is doable if we are determined to reach an agreement and not frustrate the reaching of an agreement.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, it is fascinating to follow such a fluent speaker. I do not think that I am qualified to challenge what he told your Lordships.
As a convinced supporter of leaving the European Union, I recognise that I am in a tiny minority in your Lordships’ House. I invite noble Lords to pause for thought that this House, for the first time since 1910, has parted company with the people. There was a trust, I believe, between the people and the Peers that we would support them against a high-handed other House. I am not sure that that is entirely significant, but what I would say about people who are very gloomy about the churn and bad temper that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, touched on is that we might look back and say that this was an extraordinary moment of change in British history and British politics where there was a realignment of people, and the bad temper and hot debate was all part of that and was perhaps more constructive than we see it now on a day-to-day basis.
I was interested, as perhaps other noble Lords were, to read an article in last week’s newspapers drawing our attention to the treaty of Utrecht of 1713. The author—of the article, not of the treaty—Mr Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, made the point that the famous treaty still holds force today because, unlike agreements such as NAFTA, NATO or the World Trade Organization, it contains no escape clause. The withdrawal agreement has no escape clause either. By signing it, we would be bound by its terms literally for ever. No country that I can think of with any significant stature in modern times has ever committed an act of such suicidal folly and self-harm as throwing away indefinitely fundamental sovereign powers.
I accept the advice that the term “best endeavours” may indeed have some force in international law, and, for all I know, “protocol” or some other comfortable form of words might, in diplomatic terms, add value to negotiations, but this is simply not good enough. We have been here before. I remind noble Lords how Mr Tony Blair affected to meet concerns about the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which became legally binding under the Lisbon treaty. He told the other place that, through securing Protocol 30:
“It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/07; col. 37.]
The rest is history. As a consequence of that contemptible episode, the ECJ acquired jurisdiction over swathes of our commercial, social and criminal law that was not intended by Parliament.
Of course, I am not remotely exercised by President Tusk’s preferred choice about where I spend eternity. What I cannot ignore is the EU’s increasingly aggressive attitude to this country in general and its relentless attacks on the City of London in particular. I remind noble Lords, as I have before, that we are morally and legally entitled to leave the European Union.
A gulf is fast developing between the very well-paid and arrogant officials of the EU and the citizens and institutions of individual states. I meet men and women from continental Europe who express acute embarrassment and shame at what is being done and said in their name. A group of top German economists have told the EU to tear up the Irish backstop and ditch its ideological demands in Brexit talks, calling instead for a flexible Europe of concentric circles that preserves friendly ties with the United Kingdom. Brussels must, they said, abandon its indivisibility dogma on the EU’s four freedoms to come up with a creative formula or risk a disastrous showdown with London that could all too easily spin out of control. What welcome and sensible mood music that is, compared with the vile-mannered stuff issuing from the mouths of some Eurocrats. The vexatious backstop is, for me, only one of the wholly unacceptable aspects of the withdrawal agreement. If there is any merit in the political declaration, I think it is that it has little or no legal force. By my reading, it gives away control over the environment, labour law, competition and state aid. Through non-regression clauses, none of this body of law would be capable of repeal. There is no mutual recognition for future trade in services. Accordingly, under the scope of the withdrawal agreement the most valuable and critical part of the economy will have been sacrificed.
During these debates I have asked the opposition parties from time to time what they like about the EU. I do not think there is much interest in the Liberal Democrat view, as it becomes daily clearer that, as a party, they have more appetite for virtue signalling than for governing. Their attitude to EU membership at the last election decimated their numbers, but it has not led them to moderate their actions here in your Lordships’ House to be more in line with their representatives in the House of Commons, a practice followed, I suggest, by both Labour and Conservatives in the past. Labour politicians, as distinct from Labour voters, have an obvious taste for EU membership, as it shields them from any responsibility for their redistributive policies. Their appetite for helping themselves incontinently to money they have not earned is something they can and do blame on the remote people of Brussels.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
The noble Lord refers to things we have not earned. Since he owns 17,000 acres, can he explain how come that is his main critique of the other party in this House?
Lord Cavendish of Furness
I wish I understood the question. Will the noble Lord repeat it?
Lord Lea of Crondall
We know that part of the animus about the Labour Party on the Benches opposite is their attitude to the distribution of wealth. To be more specific, I am simply asking the noble Lord whether, as an Etonian, he believes there is an issue there? Does he have some understanding of why many people in this country would take a different view?
Lord Cavendish of Furness
How nice to hear from an old class warrior. Yes, I did go to Eton and, yes, I do have land, or my family does—I have declared an interest; it is all in the register—and I should have thought my party were really rather enthusiastic redistributors ourselves. My point is not that we are redistributing other people’s money incontinently but that we are happy to face the voter at election time, but I enjoyed the intervention.
Given that we never hear from Labour politicians so much as a syllable of criticism directed at the EU and its works, I would love to know how ready they are to sign up to the EU’s federal ambitions, how comfortable they are with the well-chronicled defects of its institutions, the vast cost of corruption, the crony capitalism, the protectionist policies that harm developing countries, the democratic deficit and the truly inhuman scale of youth unemployment. Above all, they speculate, wrongly, that Brexit will cause poverty, yet they seem determined to ignore the impact of the common external tariff at between 18% and 20%—I have asked the noble Baroness on the Front Bench several times—that is levied on clothes, footwear and food. So much for Labour’s pretension to care for the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
I will say more generally that I cannot remember a time when the political class was so out of touch with the people they represent—that is a more general point and I do not focus it just on the party opposite. I canvassed opinion quite widely in Cumbria over the weekend, consulting people who voted leave and those who voted remain but have now become leavers. The reason for the change is quite often rather complex. However, overwhelmingly it has been that this has all gone on for far too long and that, to quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister,
“no deal is better than a bad deal”.
I happen to believe unashamedly, as somebody in business, that a clean break on WTO terms is better even than a second-rate deal. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and all those following her, even some on my own side, have talked about chaos and crashing out. Some 130 countries deal on WTO terms without much distress. Maybe they have been listening to the CBI, an organisation at the heart of crony capitalism that takes money from the European Union.
It is time to take stock. Those on my side of the argument put forward suggestions and ideas almost daily. For example, I have qualified enthusiasm for what has become known as the Malthouse compromise. I wholeheartedly applaud Kit Malthouse for bringing together people of opposing views in a constructive search for solutions.
My understanding remains that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister undertook to achieve certain objectives consistent with the result of the referendum. They were to take back control of our laws, end European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, end vast sums of money going to the EU, end free movement, allow the UK to leave the single market and the customs union, guarantee control of our agriculture and fisheries policy, allow new, independent trade deals for goods and services, guarantee existing defence and security arrangements with interested allies and keep the parts of our precious country united. In these very difficult circumstances, a reasonable person might allow for some slippage on some of these undertakings but, as I understand it, not a single one of these undertakings has been honoured in full by the withdrawal agreement. I do not know which failure shocks me most; I single out just one. Surely every single loyal British subject is entitled to assurances following the warnings by a former field marshal of the British Army and heads of our Security Service that the withdrawal agreement imperils our security. Can it really be the case that defence of the realm—that principal responsibility of all democratically elected Governments—can be traded away? What is going on?
I agree with the notion that officials advise and Ministers decide, and it would therefore be wrong to point a finger at the Civil Service. To that extent, and only to that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. Might it be, I ask myself, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s heroic resilience under such unprecedented pressure is the result of the field of advice being too narrow rather than too broad? Might it be the case that she consults with colleagues too little rather than too much? Whatever the case, it seems that confusion reigns. Worse, it feels that as the process winds wearily on, we are being deceived. I know for a fact that I am far from alone in this view. If trust continues to be eroded, and if people are denied the Brexit they voted for, I fear for my party, my country, the new generation and those that follow. Above all, I fear for representative democracy and the rule of law, which our forebears won at such great cost.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know if it has something to do with the algorithm used by the Whips’ Office to allocate the order of speakers in these debates, but this is far from the first time that I have had the pleasure and honour of speaking after the noble Lord. I have forgotten how many times it has been. His hatred of the European Union is so obsessive that it becomes quite amusing at times. Normally I do not have time to correct him, unfortunately, but I will correct him on just two points, since I think I can take that amount of time today.
The noble Lord referred to corruption in the European Union. That is a frequently used argument that one hears the whole time in Eurosceptic rhetoric. It refers to the Court of Auditors declining to sign the accounts of a number of operations involving the distribution of agricultural funds in the Union. The Commission itself has a very good record on corruption—much better, I might say, than the British Government. We are talking here about failures by the member states in their role distributing Union funds, such as structural funds and agricultural support. If, in fact, the Union were centralised as he says it is and all this was done centrally by the Commission, there would perhaps be less local democracy and less federalism, but there would also be less of what he calls corruption.
The second thing the noble Lord said—again, you hear this very frequently from Eurosceptics—was that the Union is undemocratic. In actual fact, if you suggested making it more democratic—I would be very much in favour of doing that, for example by having election of the President of the Union by universal suffrage as happens in the United States or France, say—he would be horrified and would say that was against national sovereignty. He cannot have it both ways. It is completely illogical. If he wants to charge the European Union with being insufficiently democratic, he cannot at the same time reject the obvious remedy, which would be to make it more democratic. I personally regret that that has not happened in the past and I trust it will happen in the future. It is more likely that it will happen in the future, because we will no longer be there. That is one of the ironies of this situation.
The present situation is obviously confusing for everybody, but one thing is quite clear: the Prime Minister, Mrs May, is playing games with the British people. She says that she intends to continue the negotiation with the European Union. She says that she has left some of her team in Brussels for that purpose. That is utterly absurd. The European Union has told her very clearly that it is not prepared to negotiate any further on her particular deal. That was a very reasonable answer and one that I would have given if I were in its shoes, because no sensible or business-like person agrees to reopen an agreement just a few weeks after it has been signed. It is utterly ridiculous. They were very helpful to Mrs May the other day when they gave her some explanatory letters, but apparently that was not good enough for her. The idea that she is continuing to negotiate is absurd.
Leaving her junior officials in Brussels and saying that they are somehow continuing the negotiation is even more absurd. If the Commission is not making concessions to her, it will hardly make concessions to junior officials. I imagine they are spending their time eating moules-frites and drinking rather nice beer. They cannot be doing anything else and presumably they are being paid on expenses for that purpose. It is all part of a charade mounted by Mrs May.
In the same way, a couple of weeks ago, Mrs May said that she wanted to discuss the Brexit situation with the Opposition and with parliamentarians across the board. It all sounded splendid, except that if she had had the slightest genuine intention of exploring the possibility of a consensual Brexit, she would have done all those things two or may be two and a half years ago. The thing is clearly a gimmick.
Why is she doing all this? She is clearly doing it, once again, to try to waste time. I have said this before in this House: the agenda is to waste time. She has done it on this occasion by simply cancelling votes or debates in the House of Commons or postponing them for a later date. Every time she gains a week or two, she gets nearer and nearer to 29 March. She thinks that on the eve of 29 March, everybody will be terrified of being blamed for a hard Brexit and will simply sign up to anything she wants as an alternative. That is the game that is being played. It is a very ruthless game, and it is hardly straightforward. It is perhaps a game that is not yet fully understood by the British public, but it will, no doubt, be dissected by historians in the future and we should have no illusions about it.
What should we do? I have no doubts about that at all. We are in a situation where Parliament cannot make a decision. There is notoriously no majority support for any solution in the House of Commons. There is majority support for a negative aspiration, which is not to have a hard Brexit. In a situation in which the normal leadership of an institution cannot agree on structural policies—on important corporate strategy, for example—it must go back to its stakeholders. A public company must go back to its shareholders. If you are a lawyer negotiating on behalf of your client and you cannot make any progress, you have to go back and ask for further instructions. The Eurosceptics rather like the word “instruction” in this context because they like to think that the referendum was an instruction to Parliament. I did not believe that and nor did the High Court. Nevertheless, perhaps if they like the word, they would like to chew it over and think about it again. That is a very normal situation which arises when an agent finds that he cannot make any further progress on the basis of instructions he has already been given. He must go back to his principal and ask for further instructions.
If the Executive branch of the British Government will not do it, Parliament must go back to the British people and ask for further instructions. That means that we should have another vote on this subject. Far from being undemocratic, it seems to me to be extremely democratic to give the people of this country a chance to judge the whole matter again. Lord knows, there has been fantastic change over the last two and a half years in this context. All of us, including very much myself, have learned an awful lot of things about Brexit which we never guessed before.
I like to think that I took a reasonably active part in the campaign. I never heard the words “customs union”—nobody ever mentioned it. Everybody talks about the customs union now. In the campaign, I did not hear any mention of the Irish dimension, until I raised it myself in a public debate in the Mansion House. My opponent clearly had not thought it through and so I had a considerable rhetorical victory there, which I enjoyed. However, it did not figure on the agenda in the referendum campaign.
Nothing could be more natural, democratic and transparent than saying to the British public, “We have been debating this for two-and-a-half years now. We have looked at it from many aspects and points of view. There are people in Parliament who are in favour of every conceivable possible solution. We would now like you, ladies and gentlemen, to take the decision”. I hope that is the way we will go forward—it should be. It is profoundly respectful of the electorate and the principles of democracy. Pragmatically, it is surely the only sensible and viable way out of the dilemma we now find ourselves in.
I wish to make one further point. There has been a great deal of concern, rightly so—not only in this House but in the other House, the media and in private discussions all over the country, particularly in industrial and commercial fields—about the damage that will be done to the British economy by any Brexit, particularly a hard Brexit, whenever it comes, be that in a month or two or at any other time. That nightmare faces us, and it is right that we should be mainly concerned about it.
However, the economic issues that I am most concerned about in this context are the longer-term ones. If we leave the European Union, it is goodbye to manufacturing in this country. That is a big statement, I know, but I am prepared to justify it. Of course there will still be some small manufacturing operations trading in the local market—manufacturing will not totally disappear—but it will go down from the present 8% of the economy to perhaps 2%, which is the kind of figure you find in Australia or Norway.
The reason for this is—I have been interested in this matter from many points of view, including my days in the City years ago—that almost every investment in manufacturing in this country is made for the purpose of establishing a base for supplying the single market, which many people have always wanted, and if you are no longer in the single market you do not qualify. As it is, we are in the single market but people who invest here and then sell in Spain, France, Germany or wherever have to face considerable transport costs and foreign exchange risks. They have accepted all those things up to now against the compensating advantages which we can offer in this country, but we have added, unfortunately, to the equation the substantial negative factors of the prospect of delays at frontiers and complete uncertainty about future British policy, including on regulatory divergence which could create non-tariff barriers. We have an unpredictable, incompetent Government, one member of whom has become a theatrical example of that incompetence. None of this reassures potential investors and it will be very bad.
I understand the economic theory which tells you that it does not really matter if we have a manufacturing economy; that it is just as good to have services, for example, or mineral extraction like the Australians. Theoretically that is true, but it makes a great deal of difference to individuals who have the skills required in manufacturing because it determines whether or not they have a job. It makes a great difference to areas of the country which have traditional manufacturing bases because it determines whether or not they become depressed areas. It is serious in human terms and should not be lightly thrust aside. It is a serious issue and that is why I mention it.
In other areas, there has been a complete failure to understand the long-term damage that will done. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, who is not in her place, made a good speech a couple of weeks ago about the broadcasting directive. No one contradicted her understanding of that, which is that if we leave the European Union it will no longer apply here. At the moment, as the House knows, that means that a television programme or a film which is released under licence in any EU country can be automatically shown anywhere else without further expense or bureaucratic procedures. That is a great advantage for our creative industries. If we no longer have the broadcasting directive, we shall be the last place anyone wants to make a programme or a movie, for reasons which are obvious to the House. That is an example of a services area—the creative arts—where we have a good record which will be damaged by leaving the European Union. It is so crazy.
Then there is the issue of the City and banking. Of course, bankers are unpopular people and no politician wants to be associated with defending their interests, and so the matter has never been properly mentioned here. Many people say, “Oh, it will be all right. Everyone will stay”. Some have said to me, “There has not been the exodus from the City of London which you expected”. I did not expect it at this stage in the game—I was right not to do so—but I read an article in a paper before Christmas which said that only 7,000 people from financial services have moved because of Brexit. That is an interesting use of the word “only”.
First, 7,000 people is not nothing at all by any means. The House will follow my elementary maths. You would not normally think it worth while to relocate someone who was not earning, say, £100,000 a year basic, with bonuses in a normal year being perhaps £200,000. So £300,000 earnings would be normal for someone in that category who is going to be moved for business reasons. If you multiply that by 7,000, it is close to £3 billion. Tax at 40% would mean about £800 million less for the Revenue. No doubt someone on that kind of earnings will save some money, but the rest of it will be spent. So there will be a considerable negative multiplier effect if people leave. It was 7,000 before Christmas—no doubt it is more now and might be more in the future—and that is not to be laughed at. It is a serious issue. It may not affect people in this Chamber, but we should think carefully about the prospect of running down such a British industry.
There will also be a loss of opportunities in that interesting sector—I worked in it for many years—for young people in the future, who had on their doorstep the biggest international financial market in the world. That will steadily no longer be the case. It will not happen overnight, but that will not be the case in 10 or 15 years’ time—certainly not to the extent it is now. We are debasing and devaluing a big national asset, and it is a sad moment.
Saddest of all is the fact that we are leaving the European family. We are rejecting our neighbours—not as neighbours but as close partners and friends in a common enterprise—and it is a grave and serious situation. We will be regarded inevitably as being stand-offish, arrogant and very foolish. People will not take pleasure in doing us favours in the future and they will not be particularly sympathetic if we run into reverses. It will change entirely our relationship with our closest neighbours and trade, defence and security partners in the future. We will no longer be working with them closely on all the causes we hold dear, from stability in the world, to the environment, to free trade, to human rights and so on. That will be a sad and grave day in the nation’s history, and I bitterly regret it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, following the longest speech in the debate, I am challenged to make sure that I do not go on quite as long as that.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, whom I regard as a friend—we were colleagues at one stage, on the same side in another place—that he is not being entirely realistic. I share many of his sadnesses and regrets, but it is not realistic to expect a second referendum. To go on about that is not doing Parliament or the people any great service. I do not like the whole concept of a referendum; it is inimical to parliamentary representative democracy. However, we had a referendum and we have to live with it. We heard a wise speech from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, in which he remarked that nobody will get what he wants as a result of this. He has left the Chamber—but it was still a very wise speech, and doubtless he will come back. He made another comment with which I disagreed: he said that we had become becalmed. In fact we have been caught in a whirlpool that is going round and round and, within the next six weeks, we will come to that artificial date, 29 March.
What do we do over the next six weeks? I do not particularly like the deal that the Prime Minister struck, but it is realistic. It would be sensible to go along with it rather than to plunge ourselves into further chaos, and certainly rather than to have a no-deal conclusion—that would indeed be a disaster. Those who know about these things have warned us repeatedly in recent days and weeks how much of a disaster and a jump into the unknown it would be. I say to my noble friend Lord Cavendish, for whom I have an affectionate regard, that at the end of all this the very rich will not suffer, whatever happens. I am concerned about the workers in Sunderland who—misguidedly, I think—voted by a large majority to leave. I am concerned for the future of people in the West Midlands, and those in Lincolnshire who voted in great numbers to leave, thereby putting the horticultural and agricultural industries in some jeopardy. However, the fact is, as is often said, that we are where we are and we have to go forward.
We cannot retain all the benefits of membership if we are leaving. One cannot leave a club and keep all the benefits. That is as plain as the proverbial pikestaff. This is a great country and I hope that its greatness has not come to an end. We are, I hope, facing a future that is not entirely dire, but I do not mind saying to your Lordships that my sons and grandchildren are deeply despondent about what has happened, and we have to have regard for them. As we have said in this Chamber time and time again over the past two years, although the majority was clear, it was small. So it is entirely wrong to try to behave on a winner-takes-all basis; there has to be compromise. I say to my noble friend Lord Cavendish and those who think as he thinks, quoting the famous words of Cromwell from a different age, conceive it possible that you might be mistaken.
Lord Cormack
Of course it does. We all have to do that, and therefore we have to approach this in a spirit of not only compromise but some humility. The ultra-Brexiteers in my party do not represent the Conservative voters in the country, although they most certainly represent and reflect members of Conservative associations. However, they do not represent those who normally vote Conservative and I urge them to have some regard for people’s concerns and try to have—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested —as amicable an outcome as we can, retaining our friendships and alliances. I implore the adherents or members of the ERG: you are not representing true Conservative opinion in the country but have hijacked the show to a large degree.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
I go to ERG meetings, which my noble friend does not. It is a very broad church; he might be surprised by that.
Lord Cormack
I suppose that it is the same sort of broad church as one that is attended only by, say, high Anglicans or low Methodists. There is no room for those who take a different view towards the European Union. The ERG’s members are all very anti the EU and determined to get us out without the sort of connections that our country is going to need.
That illustrates the divide in the party, and what we have to try to do over the next few weeks is bring people together. I do not agree with everything that the Prime Minister has said or done—of course I do not. However, we must give some support to her in the deal that she has reached and try to get it endorsed in Parliament. If it is not, I really fear for the future of our country. As far as your Lordships’ House is concerned, we of course have to acknowledge the political supremacy of the other place. My whole political philosophy is based on that; the elected House is where the power should and does lie, and that is right. We have to go along with whatever the Commons decides at the end of the day, even if decides on another referendum. I hope that it will not, and that MPs will rally round on 27 February or whenever and that there will be a majority for a deal like the Prime Minister’s, because I truly fear for the future if we fall or are pushed off the cliff edge.
I want amicable relations with our friends and allies and a Europe that can work together, including those who are members of the European Union and those who are not. We have to recognise the militant populism surging in so many European countries. Whoever thought that one European neighbour would withdraw its ambassador from another because the Deputy Prime Minister of that country was inciting rebellious forces within the other country? We are living in dangerous times and need to inject some peace and calm into this situation.
I mentioned a while ago that the Prime Minister should appeal across the House to the Leader of the Opposition and give all Members of the other place a free vote when it comes to the meaningful vote. That is essential. It happened when we went into what was then the European Community and it should happen before we come out of the European Union. We should press for that. As for tonight, I do not for the life of me see what point or purpose there would be in voting against the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. There is not a word in it with which any of us, I hope, would disagree if we want a smooth outcome. So I implore my friends on the Front Bench not to vote. Last time, there was a similar Motion and an overwhelming defeat for the Government, which was wholly unnecessary because we were all singing from the same hymn sheet. Let us try to bring today’s proceedings to a close without dividing this House and in so doing send a message to the other place.
I rest my case but very much hope that by the end of March we will have reached some sensible conclusion, part of which should be an extension of the leaving date to ensure that all the necessary legislation passes through Parliament in a tidy and seemly manner.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, in common with many noble Lords, I had decided to abstain from any further EU withdrawal debates feeling that all there is to be said has been said not once but many times. I was also keen to cede the floor to noble Lords better equipped than me, through experience and expertise, to comment on the manifold versions of EU withdrawal currently on the table and, indeed, at this point scattered all over the floor.
However, in reflecting on the contributions of other noble Lords to the debate in this House on 28 January, and in following the ongoing discussions that are the subject of today’s Motion, I am struck by the continued silence of what Sir Ivan Rogers, in his Liverpool University lecture last year, referred to as “the dog that failed to bark”, and so I rise, I hope briefly, to ensure that in this take note debate this House really does take note of the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on our world-leading services sector and of the absence of any real consideration of the needs of services industries within ongoing discussions.
Services are a UK success story. They have driven three-fifths of the rise in UK exports over the past 20 years, they are responsible for more than 40% of our total exports, they contribute 80% of the UK’s GDP and they account for four in five jobs up and down the country. UK services are exported all over the world, but the largest single destination by far is the EU, which is worth £90 billion annually to the economy.
So why have we heard so little about trade in services over the past two and a half years, never mind over the past two and half weeks? It might be because of the high concentration of services in London and the south-east or because of the predominance of financial companies in the general perception of what constitutes the service sector. With London perceived to have prospered at the expense of the rest of the country, and with the financial sector still held responsible in the public mind for the 2008 crash and the years of austerity that followed, perhaps forefronting services in negotiations did not feel like much of a vote winner.
Whatever the reason, much of the debate on the future economic relationship between the UK and the EU has focused on key “at the border” issues affecting trade in goods, such as customs and tariffs, rather than the “behind the border” issues of domestic rules and regulations that are the potential barriers to free and open trade in services. It is certainly easier to grasp the more straightforward concept of selling a good than it is to understand cross-border services trade, which is by no means all carried out via virtual means. There are five modes of services. Yes, services are provided remotely, but they are also provided in the supplier’s country, such as tourism or studying at a university. They are provided in the consumer’s country through the establishment of permanent offices. They are provided by fly-in, fly-out provisions, and they are provided within the manufacture and supply of goods, which are almost always supported by services, including maintenance contracts, legal, design and technology, and this last mode is not covered by the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services. Of course, most of these services are delivered by people on the ground, which means that service provision is linked inextricably with ease of movement.
This bundling together of services, goods and people finds perhaps its most sublime expression in the cultural and creative industries, particularly in the part of the sector in which I was active, where it is impossible to distinguish between the person and the service they offer. I doubt he would have expected to be quoted in this context, but WB Yeats had it right when he asked:
“How can we know the dancer from the dance?”
In terms of the service that dancers provide, you just cannot.
As was noted earlier, the creative industries are particularly relevant in any discussion about services. They are responsible for almost 10% of UK service exports, they are creating jobs at four times the rate of the wider economy and they contribute £101 billion in gross value added every year, which is more than oil and gas, automotive, aerospace and life sciences combined. This success has been achieved on the back of the freedoms enabled through membership of the EU: the ability to cross borders without visas; to transport instruments, scenery and costumes without tariffs, carnets and border checks; to have professional qualifications recognised and IP protected; and to travel freely, often at ludicrously short notice.
Despite their importance to the economy, the UK’s reputation, tourism, inward investment and employment, the withdrawal agreement is silent on services. As we have often said in this Chamber, it is true that the declaration on the future relationship is, despite its brevity, a far more important document, in the long run, than the agreement itself, but the language is vague and none of it is legally binding, so while it promises “ambitious arrangements”, it is worryingly light on trade in services and on the mobility of people that allows services to be delivered.
It is hard not to conclude, as Sir Ivan Rogers did in his Liverpool University speech, that,
“UK services’ industries needs have been sacrificed to the primary goal of ending free movement”,
on the basis that it is the will of the people. I ask once again: which people? Polls show that public concern about immigration is the lowest it has been for 16 years. The Migration Advisory Committee has noted:
“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”.
Even the Sun reported a YouGov poll showing that eight out of 10 leave voters want to welcome the same number of doctors and nurses to the UK after Brexit, with more than half keen to welcome even more. One in five leave voters wanted more social workers, too. It was the high-salaried bankers they wanted turned away. So much for the proposed post-Brexit immigration policy which, as it stands, will facilitate exactly the opposite: access for the higher paid, but nothing beyond a one-year stay for the nurses, care workers and teaching assistants on which our economy and society depend. Once again, just for the record, I say that salary levels are not a proxy for skills.
The CBI warns that for service industries, like so many others, no deal is not an option. It goes on to say that under a no-deal scenario service industries would not be able to rely on WTO rules and that companies in some of the UK’s most successful exporting sectors, including finance, broadcasting and airlines, would be unable, for certain types of services, to trade at all. This will hit not just London and the south-east; the north-east and the West Midlands send about half of their services exports to the EU, which makes them proportionally more exposed to the effects of no deal.
Given the strength of the UK’s services sector, the jobs it provides, the tax revenue it generates and, by extension, the public services it supports up and down the country, can the Minister confirm that appropriate attention will be focused on getting the right deal for the services sector as discussions continue?
I join other noble Lords in expressing my disappointment at yesterday’s Statement. We are told to hold our nerve. I know a thing or two about nerves, but we now find ourselves in a situation not unlike the ballet dancer’s standard anxiety dream: it is 7.29 pm, the overture is playing, the curtain is about to go up and we are all lined up on stage with absolutely no idea of the steps we are supposed to perform. The Prime Minister’s Statement on the ongoing discussions provided no comfort whatever for the services sector or any other that the cliff edge is receding. In fact, it did quite the opposite: her apparent tactic of kicking the can continually down the road in an attempt to ensure the other side blinks first seems to be taking us ever closer to a place where no deal is a horrible inevitability.
This House and the other place have both confirmed their belief that no deal must be taken off the table. With the clock ticking, with no alternative arrangements to the backstop on the horizon, with no sign of EU willingness to reopen a deal our own Prime Minister said was the best we were going to get, with a mountain of statutory instruments and Bills still to be scrutinised and debated and with no parliamentary majority for a deal in sight, it is surely time to admit that there is no possibility that this country will be ready to leave the EU on 29 March. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, so eloquently pointed out early this afternoon, we now need as a matter of urgency to start the process of requesting an extension to Article 50 while time might just still be on our side.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, this is my third time speaking and my third time doing so after the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I do not know whether there is any significance to this.
Anyway, this Brexit debate is nothing if not a contest between two visions of the future. There is no surprise about that. However, the debate has become so dogmatic, dug-in and devoid of good old English common sense that it has also given rise to two versions of history. Just as the EU today claims moral ownership of the Good Friday agreement as if it had taken part in the negotiations and suffered thousands of casualties during the Troubles, there are some remainers who give the EU credit for ending the Cold War—so much so that, in our debate on 28 January, to the applause of others sitting opposite us, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave the then European Community the credit for bringing down the Berlin Wall.
This is entirely false. I was living in Germany, married to a German. I was there in September 1989, the very first time East Germans—
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, if I can correct the noble Baroness, the credit I gave to the EU was for welcoming the states of eastern and central Europe into a state of democracy and freedom. We can argue about the cause of the fall of the Berlin Wall; I did not ascribe that, as such, to the EU.
Baroness Meyer
I will cover that particular point in my next paragraph. I will continue because I am not yet confident enough to speak without notes, but beware: it will happen one day, and noble Lords might regret it.
I was living in Germany. We were there in September 1989, the first time that the East Germans were allowed to leave East Germany. We ran to the border and saw people coming out on bicycle, on foot and in their little Trabants. The West Germans lined the street and welcomed the East Germans. It was an unforgettable moment—the celebration of freedom from a state of oppression. This moment remains in my mind and will do so for a long time. My children are half-German.
The EU had nothing to do with it. It happened because of the fall of communism, mainly because of its inadequacies. If any international organisation contributed to the fall of communism, especially of the Soviet Union, it was NATO, not the European Community, as it was called then. If any international statesman helped the Berlin Wall come down, it was President Reagan, who called to Mr Gorbachev in 1989, “Tear down that wall”.
If we cannot agree on the future of this country, the least we can do is not reinvent the past to gain advantage in Brexit debates. Let us not forget that Paris and London were strongly opposed to the reunification of Germany in 1990 for fear that it would become too powerful. Let us not forget that Chancellor Kohl told the German people in 1997 that EU integration and the adoption of the euro were the price that Germany had to pay to dominate Europe without alarming its neighbours. Let us also not forget that Kohl pledged to his people that the euro—which led directly to economic crises in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and to the impoverishment of Italy today—would be no less strong and stable than the deutschmark.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we all have our historical memories and interpretations of history. In 1990-91, I spent a lot of time in the transforming societies of eastern Europe—Poland, Hungary, Romania, et cetera. The first thing that their new Governments wanted to know was how soon they could join the European Community. It was partly the attraction of the European Community which had led those Governments, including that of Hungary—who were a good, progressive Government in those days—to believe that reform was possible. My participation in this was different from that of the noble Baroness, and I saw something rather different too.
Baroness Meyer
I completely understand what the noble Lord is saying and completely agree with him. In the east, they all wanted to join the European Community. It was seen as a symbol of freedom. This is not my point. My point is that it was implied in the previous debate that the European Union—when it was called the European Community—played a role in liberating the communists, and that this is entirely wrong. It had no role whatever.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My recollection of those days, when those brave people in eastern Europe were liberated, is that their leaders wanted to know, “How quickly can we meet Margaret Thatcher, who has done so much to give us this freedom?”.
Baroness Meyer
Absolutely—I have the same recollection.
The point I am trying to make is that people are over-exaggerating in all these debates. I know that some people say the Brexiters are exaggerating on one side, but the remainers and reversers are also totally over-exaggerating. They have a nostalgia for a European Union which is a completely different entity. The European Community that noble Lords may be idealising had 12 relatively cohesive members. We are now leaving a squabbling group of 28 members, where even the EU’s core democratic values are in question. The “ever closer union” has come to a halt and the economy looks to be doing the same. What is economically essential to complete the eurozone has become politically impossible, as President Macron has learned to his cost. As the BBC would say, despite Brexit, we are actually doing rather well economically.
Compare us with France and Italy, as well as with Germany, which is now falling into recession. We need to be realistic. We keep looking inwards at what is happening in this country; this is not happening in the rest of the European Union. The real threat to prosperity is not Brexit—as some noble Lords call it, “crashing out”—but uncertainty and indecision. If one message comes over loud and clear from businesses and people in this country, it is, “Get on with it”. This is another way of saying, “Just do as you were instructed”.
Baroness Meyer
Are noble Lords democrats? Did we have a vote? Did the majority of people vote to leave the European Union? We have to deliver. It is insulting of us, because we are privileged—
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
In a representative democracy, we do not instruct our representatives.
Baroness Meyer
Of course. It is an honour to be here. However, first of all, we need to respect what our Prime Minister has said, as well as what the people have voted for.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
When the Government and Parliament of this country delegate a decision to the people, they have to follow the mandate that the people have given.
Baroness Meyer
We need to try to work together to find a solution and stop bickering and reinventing the facts. Do not delay; do not betray. Let us get on with it. There must be a solution somewhere that we can agree and work together on. As noble Lords keep saying, there is a future generation. They will not see us as very good if we keep on fighting, discussing and bickering. We need to look forward. I am sorry, I am a Conservative: we have a Conservative Government and we need to support our Government.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, who had the misfortune to follow me in the great Lutyens house in Washington. It is said that every ambassador deplores his predecessor’s taste and his successor’s judgment.
I owe the House and the Minister an apology. I was called away and missed part of his speech.
The text for my sermon is the following:
“Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop—we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave”.
That is what the Vote Leave campaign said in June 2016. I repeat,
“we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave”.
Here we are with six weeks to go, but we do not know what the new deal is and we are flirting with no deal.
Flirting with no deal is playing ducks and drakes with the country’s economy. It would be hugely damaging. British business is shocked because this is not what it was told to expect; it is not what it did expect; it is not what it is prepared for; and it is still in the dark about how to prepare for it. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned the British Chambers of Commerce’s 20 questions to the Government—20 basic questions that it has asked with six weeks to go. The noble Lord highlighted three of them; I would like to add three questions to the Minister.
First, supposing that there is no deal, what, on 30 March, will be our trade regime with our biggest trading partner—the 27 countries of the European Union? Am I right in thinking that the EU will apply its common external tariff and that the fascinating arguments about Article XXIV of GATT advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, are a very elegant red herring? Am I right that the EU will apply its common external tariff in full on 30 March?
My second question is as follows. In the event of no deal, how many of the EU’s free trade deals with major third countries will have been rolled over? What about Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, which are all big trading partners? Am I right in thinking that the answer is, “None of the above”?
Thirdly, in the event of no deal, how many new trade deals with third countries will be in force? What about Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand? Am I right in thinking that the answer is, “None of the above”?
With six weeks to go, if the answers are as I fear or if the Government do not know the answers or will not reveal them, it is grossly irresponsible not to take no deal off the table. This is not a Westminster game; real jobs are at risk out there in the real economy. The irony is that those who misled us back in 2016 by saying:
“Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop—we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave”,
are precisely the same people who are now saying that we do not need any new deal and that no deal will be just fine. That is irresponsible. It might be just fine for them; for the country it would be disastrous.
Of course, the Minister will say, yet again, that the way to avoid no deal is to vote for Mrs May’s deal—the one that both Houses rejected by large majorities. They rejected it because it is such a humiliating and one-sided deal, and it will not get much better in the next six weeks. Here, I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, whom I normally follow with great respect. As President Tusk and President Juncker said in their letter a month ago,
“we are not in a position to agree to anything that changes or is inconsistent with the Withdrawal Agreement”.
That draft treaty, on which they shook hands with Mrs May back in November, will not change in any significant respect, and I do not think that it is going to change at all.
It is perfectly possible to envisage changes to the political declaration, provided that they are not inconsistent with what is in the draft treaty. Of course, the political declaration is not legally binding. We in this House have spent very little time on it; we have spent most of our time on the treaty because we are so fascinated by the backstop problem. However, we should have spent more time on the political declaration because it is the most extraordinary document. It is astonishingly wide in scope and astonishingly shallow in substance. It does not settle anything for the future negotiation.
The political declaration kicks off well in paragraph 4:
“The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms”.
I wonder which side drafted that. The next sentence reads:
“It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom”.
Who drafted that one? That is settled, then—there we have it. These principles will be respected, so the game is over and we might as well crack open the champagne straightaway.
Bits of the declaration do settle things. Paragraph 24 shows that we have accepted that we cannot be in the agencies, particularly the medicines agency, the chemicals agency and the aviation safety agency. Paragraphs 89 and 90 show that we have accepted that we will not have access to the European arrest warrant, the Schengen Information System and the European Criminal Records Information System. The police tell us that we will suffer greatly from that, but we have accepted it. The financial services paragraphs—paragraphs 37 to 39, which are astonishingly thin—make it clear that passporting and mutual recognition will not happen. That is not good news for the City.
However, most worrying are the really vacuous paragraphs about my old profession—the section on foreign policy co-operation. When you think of Peter Carrington moving the Council on the Falklands, of John Major moving the Council on a safe haven for the Kurds in 1991, and of the way that Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the other heavyweight in the Council, would defer to Douglas Hurd at the very time that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, was speaking about—I wish that Lord Hurd of Westwell were with us today—it is very sad to read where we have got to on foreign policy. The political declaration says:
“The Parties will shape and pursue their foreign policies according to their respective strategic and security interests, and their respective legal orders. When and where these interests are shared, the Parties should cooperate closely … To this end, the future relationship should provide for appropriate dialogue, consultation, coordination, exchange of information and cooperation mechanisms”.
There is no definition of “appropriate” there. This is sad. We have contributed a huge amount to the foreign policy of Europe over the last 40 years. Now, we and the EU will be following our own interests and, if they happen to coincide, there will be some mechanism for talking about it. That is very bad.
I should draw the House’s attention to an even more vacuous paragraph on space. Paragraph 107 says:
“The Parties should consider appropriate arrangements for cooperation on space”.
So that is done—it is settled.
This document settles nothing at all. It is not prescriptive or definitive. We should remember that the EU will be negotiating on the legal basis of Article 218, and it needs unanimity on its side. Any single member side on that side can block anything. If somebody decides that to allow access for British fish products to his market he will demand access to British fishing waters, there is nothing to stop him saying that this year, next year and the year after—until we agree. Remember that the outcome is subject to national ratification; it goes off to the Wallonia parliament and referenda in five EU member states.
There is nothing certain in this description of the future. The only thing that is certain is that we are heading for at least five years—probably 10, I would guess—of continuing uncertainty. I come back to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, because it would be shocking if I only disagreed with him in my remarks. I strongly agree with the way he ended. We do not have to accept this choice. It is not a choice between being thrown over the Tarpeian Rock on 29 March or the slow strangulation of this rebarbative negotiation, which would poison our relations with our neighbours for a decade, and the certainty that the deal we would end up with is a hell of a lot worse than the one we have now. We do not have to buy that choice. The first thing to do is agree that we should seek an extension under Article 50(3) of the treaty.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, let me again draw attention to my interests in the register and say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I agree with him that where we are is just not acceptable. Today, I want to deal with a few points on, first, the timetable and, secondly, what I see as the view from Brussels. In UK political scenarios, it seems we spend most of our time speaking to each other; we seldom look outside the country and ask what other people see and what they have to say.
The first thing I would say is that this agreement is not about a dispute between Britain and Ireland; it is about an agreement between us and 27 other member states. Secondly, it is not an agreement that they want us to leave. It has been very clear from the first instant after this decision was made that the European Union would make jolly sure that the terms of our leaving were such that nobody else would ever try it. That is what this agreement is about. Of course, it is not actually an agreement. It is an agreement to seek an agreement. It has nothing really in it. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has drawn attention to some of the vacuous statements in the political declaration, statements which led to us being excluded from Galileo and the excellent Minister Sam Gyimah feeling he had to quit the Government because, as he said, we had no voice, no vote, no veto—that is where we are heading.
As far as Europe is concerned, we have a deal. It is up to us whether we accept it. They are not saying that there is a deadline for a deal; they are saying, “If you want to keep talking to us, there might be an amendment at the margin, but there will be no amendment on what you agreed”. Anyway, the only body capable of signing off on a deal is the Council. Messrs Barnier, Juncker, Verhofstadt and Tusk all represent important institutions, but they have no delegated power to sign off any deal. What they would say is, “You already have a deal; it has already been agreed by the Council. It is up to you to decide whether or not you accept it. Yes, we may talk about declarations or side points, but the main deal is not open”. Even if there is a subsequent side agreement, let me remind noble Lords that the Council next meets on 21 March—quite a long time from now. They will say, “There is no point postponing Article 50; nothing will change. All that would change is that you would have a few more weeks to ask for something you are not going to get”. Of course, if there was a real prospect, the Council, acting through the 27 member states, might be able to agree to extend Article 50. But why should it? What is the point? There is no point, as far as Brussels is concerned.
In this Chamber, we always forget that there is a body called the European Parliament. It is quite clear that the Council cannot conclude the agreement without the consent of the European Parliament.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He seems to accept that the European Parliament has the right to veto this agreement, but the British Parliament does not. Why does he take that view?
Lord Balfe
Of course, the European Parliament has that right; it is a co-decision-making body with the Council. It has been represented by Mr Verhofstadt and the agreement will be placed before the European Parliament, which in theory can reject it—as can the British Parliament.
Lord Balfe
Yes, and it can carry on rejecting it, in which case we will have no deal. However, the European Parliament is a joint decision-making body and it cannot take a decision until there is an agreement in the Council.
The European Parliament next meets, after the Council, on 25 March. That is a Monday; they will not be there. So the earliest day the European Parliament could agree is the 26th. When you look at the clock, you see that if there is a change, there will be no agreement until the 26th. Then we will be right up against it, but the choice will be fairly clear. Assuming we follow normal conventions and have a Lords debate before the Commons debate, our debate will be on the 26th, and could presumably start as soon as word reaches us from Strasbourg that they have agreed the deal; having a debate would be senseless if they have not. We could have our debate and, on the 27th, the people down the corridor could start theirs. That is the timetable; that is the only one there is if there is an amendment to the deal. I ask the Minister whether he has any other, counter timetable, because that is the realistic timetable.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that there is one point in her Motion which I find difficult, because it is unrealistic. That is the words:
“before the end of February 2019”.
If those words could be removed from the resolution, it would be perfectly acceptable. However, it is perfectly impractical to think that anything could be done before that date in February. That is one point that I would like the noble Baroness to consider regarding whether or not we could get a consensus in this House. There is nothing else in the resolution that most of us—other than those who strongly wish to leave without a deal, or with a very attenuated deal—could disagree with. I put that point forward.
The final point I want to make is this. Of course I deplore Project Fear, which we find constantly; this country will not collapse if we leave the European Union. It will have a difficult time; it will have a pretty torrid time for a pretty short time, but it is still basically a great country that will survive. It is not a country that will go into meltdown, or cease to exist, or where all the lights will go off. It is a country that will survive. However, it will survive as a diminished power in the world. It is a country that will survive outside the one bloc which uses its strengths to make it an important country. We will look back on this in the way that my generation look back on Suez—as a turning point which diminished this country. When we go into these negotiations, if we accept this deal—we will accept something or other—we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, going to have five or 10 years of fruitless negotiation. There will be no MEPs or people in the Council of Ministers to represent our views. We will constantly be the supplicant state, we will not have much power and we will have to take what we are given. That is not a good position for us to be in. I do not write off our country; it will survive and prosper, but it will never be as great as it can be as part of the European family.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, it is often forgotten that in May 1940, when we faced our deepest crisis, it was Labour, led by Clement Attlee, that saved Britain. It put country firmly before party, and, with the help of Tories who also put country first, ensured that Churchill became Prime Minister instead of Halifax, and so prevented a humiliating peace with Hitler. Today Labour is once again in a position to save Britain at a time of the greatest crisis since 1940. Alas, although that is the wish and the policies favoured by the Labour membership and supporters, unfortunately, a small group of ideologues has captured the party and defies the view of the vast majority of its members. Corbyn and his clique support Brexit, and even seek ways of making common cause with Theresa May to achieve it, whereas the membership opposes Brexit, and is in favour of remain and a new vote.
Corbyn has behaved dishonourably, indeed disgracefully. The letter to Mrs May before their meeting, drafted I gather by shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer, referred to the fallback position—which is official Labour Party policy—of a further people’s vote. Before the letter was sent, that reference was deleted. When asked why, the answer was, “Oh, we forgot to put it in”. What duplicity—and why was Corbyn seeking to do a deal which would leave the present Government in power to 2022? It seems that it was so that the Tories could take the blame for the disaster of Brexit, and would be out of power for a generation. When Labour supporters become aware of this manoeuvring by a small clique to thwart their wishes, there will be an outcry. Their behaviour should be exposed to every party member, and shouted from the rooftops. Polls show that Corbyn already has a negative rating among Labour supporters and has lost the support of most party members. The power of this clique can be broken.
Consider our present circumstances. We are stumbling towards a no-deal Brexit, now judged by many to be the most likely result. Most in the Tory party still seem mainly concerned with preserving its unity—but now, as in 1940, is surely the time to forget about party. Should not Labour pro-Europeans come out and publicly announce that, unless Corbyn abandons his support for Brexit, they will no longer accept the Whip? I believe that, as in 1940, a significant number of Tory pro-Europeans will be willing to show that they are no less patriotic than their Labour colleagues, and will also put country before party. The effect on our politics would be dramatic. If all pro-European MPs now declare their support for a new people’s vote, and campaign to remain in a reformed European Union, to save British manufacturing, the service industry, and hundreds or even thousands of small businesses that cannot cope with Brexit, then Brexit can be stopped. Labour can once again give a lead, and save Britain.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment on the reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, on the Labour Party as I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of its manoeuvrings. I have not yet spoken in this series of debates, so I will start with a staccato summary of my general views on the subject before coming to particular points.
Like my noble friend Lord Cormack, I do not care for referendums, but we voted to hold it. I campaigned and voted to remain in both 1975 and 2016. However, I accept the result. There are times in life when things change, and one simply has to come to attention, turn and march forward in the new direction, making the best of it that one can. Change can come suddenly, as when one loses an election—some of us have had experience of that—or it can creep up more gradually like old age, and some of us are experiencing that now. Either way, you accept it. A third referendum would not be wise. People talk of a second referendum, but of course it would be a third referendum on the same subject. Of course, those who think that the present result was unacceptable want to try again, but whoever lost a third referendum would want a fourth. The idea that it would settle the matter is wrong. It will be many years before history can judge whether or not it was the right decision. I suspect that in future many PhDs will be earned by academics arguing both ways. The judgment will depend, of course, among other things, on what happens to the EU in the coming years, as well as what happens to Britain.
Like my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, I believe that so-called alternative arrangements can be found so that the borders—both the land border in Ireland and our sea borders in south-east England—can remain much as they are now. From the trade point of view, it is the customs authorities which will organise that. We had a stark warning from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, about the stress on the Civil Service at the moment, and I firmly agreed with that part of what he said. I base my conviction that alternative arrangements can be found on my dealings, as Customs Minister many years ago, with the late lamented King’s Beam House, then the headquarters of customs. There had been a series of organisational changes since then, but I doubt that they have led to better practical advice to Ministers—I fear the opposite.
The former proud department of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise, with all its experience, was merged with the Inland Revenue in 2006. Then in 2008, the Border Agency was created under the Home Office, and took over the border duties at ports, airports and the land border, and the customs cutters with them. Its responsibilities for immigration work, given the problems, were the main concern of management and Ministers at that time and since. These days, port, airport and cutters officers belong to the Border Force under the Home Office, whereas taxation officials collecting VAT, excise duties and so on are mostly inland and come under a different organisation.
We all know that tax, particularly VAT, excise rates and coverage, differs sharply between the United Kingdom and Ireland and between the United Kingdom and our continental neighbours. This makes smuggling at land and sea borders worth while if you can get away with it. Supplies for personal consumption are taxed in the country of purchase, so people in Northern Ireland cross the border to buy things without problems, and the same applies at Dover and elsewhere. That should not change. On the whole, smuggling is effectively countered by the relevant agencies in the various countries co-operating, and there is every reason why, if customs duties eventually differ, as presumably they will, in addition to the tax differences, the same will apply.
In designing alternative arrangements for handling cross-border trade, either on the land or the sea border, it should be remembered that the merged HMRC is trying to manage a range of complex IT changes all at once, including Making Tax Digital and its part in universal credit. It is also, unrelated to Brexit, introducing a new customs declaration service—a computer system that will replace CHIEF, the 25 year-old customs handling of import and export freight computer system. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the introduction of the new customs declaration service is going to timetable. It was scheduled to finish in March—an interesting combination of dates. Both CHIEF and CDS are linked to the existing EU export control system and will still need to be after Brexit as well. All this reorganisation must be making life very difficult for the customs management. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that alternative arrangements are technically possible and that they would work just as well as the existing and long-standing taxation and border arrangements work at both land and sea borders.
This debate has been, to some extent, a repeat of previous ones—the holding pattern that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, so charmingly introduced us to in his speech. Some contributions have simply repeated or developed further people’s previous views, but some important contributions have been very positive, starting with the noble and learned Lord’s. I was interested that he urged acceptance of the agreement, except for the backstop, and then carefully set out in a very good way solutions that sounded extremely reachable. I also noted the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, regarding the Northern Ireland aspects. They were most important interventions that should be taken into account and carefully considered as to what we do today.
I believe that in the end we shall emerge from this process battered, no doubt, but unbowed. I believe that this country has a great future whether or not we succeed in solving all these problems in the next few weeks. It might be that the backstop has to be extended, but only for a specific purpose. It is the next few weeks that will count, even if there is a bit of tidying up to do, as it were, in the few weeks after 29 March.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, this is the very first time I have inflicted my views on your Lordships’ House on what is without doubt the gravest matter I have faced in the 20 years I have been here and probably in my lifetime. I have a number of reasons for not having previously spoken on the subject. In the first place, I was not sure there was much I could offer that was new and illuminating. Secondly, I continued to hope that the Government, and indeed the leadership of my own party, would do a better job of steering clear of the self-destructive path that both, in their different ways, seem to be taking.
I have always shared the common view that Britain was a pragmatic, sensible country with an instinctive aversion to extremism, be it of the right or the left. It is now clear that I was wrong on just about all counts. This has led me to conclude that I do in fact have one or two fresh observations to offer. For once, time allows me to put those thoughts into context. On this occasion, context is particularly important.
Like one or two other Members of your Lordships’ House I am a mongrel. My mother’s family were immigrants from Russia and my father’s family were French—albeit they arrived as invaders on these shores 953 years ago. Our family home is in west Cork in the Republic of Ireland, where, for 30 years, I have enjoyed watching the relationship between my country of birth and my country of adoption grow ever closer. Sadly it is now clear that relationship is dangerously deteriorating.
For the past 50 years I have also run my own business, working in and indeed with the United States, during which I have made literally hundreds of trade deals. Most recently I spent four years as the UK’s trade and cultural envoy in south-east Asia, all of which allows me the conceit of believing that I know a fair bit more about the effects of Brexit on Ireland and the business of negotiating, most especially in the United States, than the current Minister for International Trade, Dr Liam Fox. From time to time I hear him and others speaking rather airily of a special relationship—that post Brexit we will be free to make the mother of all trade deals with the US. This belief is either a cruel fantasy or a deliberate falsification of what the best of his department know to be the truth.
“The chief business of the American people is business”.
That is not just a speech line dreamed up in 1925 by Calvin Coolidge; there is also a deep truth attached to it. No matter how close you may personally feel to an American business counterpart, when you sit across the negotiating table, all notions of a special relationship go out of the window and new rules apply. My friend the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, knows well of what I speak.
The first of those rules is that only a fool allows the other side to know where their red lines are drawn. The art of the deal is discerning where the other side’s red lines are in order to begin to assemble your own. Having done so, the second rule is keeping them to yourself. We somehow managed to break both rules within months of the referendum. We have been trying to haul ourselves back from that absurd position ever since. I used to believe—no, I used to assume—that we had some of the finest minds in the world working in our Foreign Office, a number of whom have presumably been seconded to the task of attempting to fulfil our new trade fantasies.
As he takes note, I would like to throw a few questions at the Minister. I ask him to respect the House by offering a thoughtful response to them. As Dr Fox dreams of improving on the EU’s trade arrangements with the US, is he aware that around 40 million Americans claim Irish roots and in most cases actually describe themselves as Irish-Americans? That is 12.9% of the total population and close to 20% of the voters in the crucial north-western swing states of Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Is he also aware that no fewer than 63 US Congressmen and Congresswomen are members of the Friends of Ireland caucus, most of whom have direct Irish heritage? Did he know that US Senators Cantwell, Casey, Cassidy, Collins, Cruz, Durbin, Enzi, Kaine, Kennedy, Leahy, McConnell, Murkowski, Murphy, Murray, Sullivan and Toomey all have direct Irish heritage—that is, nine Republicans and seven Democrats? I will leave it to Dr Fox and those who advise him to work out the electoral consequences of a situation in which this country was rightly held responsible for severe disruption and maybe even disaster to the Irish economy on both sides of the border.
With the 2020 US elections just 20 months away, how would the Minister fancy the chances of a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives who was felt to have in any way supported Britain in heaping misery on the Irish economy? As he prepares his response, I am sure that he feels that he can safely take refuge in an assurance that the Government have no intention of damaging the Republic of Ireland or its economy. But does he seriously believe that right now that perception holds good in Dublin, in Brussels or, crucially, in Washington?
I can confidently make him one promise. Should we crash out or endanger the Good Friday agreement, either accidently or through sheer ineptitude, then all the blame will lie with us. We will not be forgiven—not in Ireland, not in Europe and, politically at least, not in the United States. There will be no point in sending Boris Johnson off to attend a St Patrick’s Day parade wearing a green leprechaun hat, because Dr Fox is likely to find what he believed to be a friendly Congressional door slammed firmly in his face.
That is the purely political reality. But on any number of other fronts we are already discovering powerful lobbies in the US seeking preferential treatment in areas such as food safety standards, demands that are totally incompatible with our own established norms. Is Dr Fox, a medical doctor, going to suggest for one moment that we downgrade our own health and safety standards to close a trade deal? It is unthinkable.
Our Minister for International Trade has developed a habit of trying to retrofit his ideological preferences to imaginary world scenarios. However, despite small successes with Switzerland and Singapore, real life will surely close in, and he will be found to be what the Americans refer to as a blowhard.
John Harris, the Guardian columnist, wrote yesterday of his recent encounters with real life on both sides of the Irish border:
“Just about everyone I met knew perfectly well that Theresa May’s travails over the so-called backstop are the product of politicians and voters elsewhere forgetting about the island of Ireland, only to be reminded that for the people who live there, Brexit represents a profound set of dangers. No one was that surprised about this amnesia, but many were very angry about it”.
I am one of them. I am very angry. I am angry because most of the public discourse regarding the backstop, particularly from the ERG, has revealed a staggering level of either pig ignorance or malicious disregard, and I am not quite sure which is worse. As Harris wrote, Brexit is a,
“Pandora’s box, brimming with unforeseen consequences”.
Ever the optimist, my final question to the Minister is this. What specific plans do his Government have for healing the wound we have managed to inflict on our closest geographical and cultural neighbour, once all this present madness is behind us? It would be very wrong for him to either ignore this point or resort to any form of bland assurance, because, either knowingly or unthinkingly, enormous damage has already been done, and we will have to work very hard and with great imagination to recover the relationship that was so brilliantly forged by Her Majesty the Queen less than eight years ago, in May 2011. But even then, we will still be left with the question that many of us are forced to ask: was all this pain necessary? Was it really worth it? I profoundly believe it to be in the national interest to support the Motion of my noble friend.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, over past months we have learned all sorts of names as choices for European Union withdrawal. These include the Canada formula, the Norway arrangement, an adaptation of the latter called Norway-plus, then the expedient of a United Kingdom-European Union customs union, and, not least, the no-deal option.
Recently, however, quite some publicity has focused instead upon a new suggestion, to which noble Lords have already referred. This seeks to combine the customs union formula with Norway-plus, for one of its elements is the soft Brexit, Norway-plus deployment of membership of the European Economic Area and another is a UK-EU customs union.
Although coming forward rather late in the day, this notion is to be welcomed, for it enables an even wider grapple or context. Within this, each of the proposals, their permutations and their combined total can arguably be assessed all the more accurately.
I will comment briefly on their shortcomings, on the consequent challenge to Parliament and the country, yet on the prospect for the United Kingdom now to go in a much better direction.
Deficiency of offer is notably reflected by the reaction of another place. There is no stomach for any of the proposals. In the first place, to devise a palatable one requires patience and stamina. For seeking to do so, all of us will wish to pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Yet this expedient has been defeated by a large majority, and it will not pass without a significant alteration to the backstop, which is unlikely. The most recent intervention, outlined earlier, a UK-EU customs union allied to Norway-plus, might have come to the rescue. But it will not, for beyond Europe it would deny the UK an independent trade policy. Many will object to that.
Nor will it work to play for time. A request for an extension has already been rejected twice in another place. Even if it came to be approved, the EU is unwilling to reopen the withdrawal agreement in any case. Furthermore, remain will not achieve a majority; it only would through a second referendum.
Where Parliament certainly comes together is in its aversion to a no-deal Brexit. This, it is estimated, would produce an economic recession of minus 2% to minus 3% of GDP. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and several other noble Lords have implied, it goes without saying that such an incompetent outcome would be as little tolerated by the country as it would be by Parliament.
That apart, if no version of an EU withdrawal arrangement is endorsed, there will be a no-deal Brexit. Among others, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, are correct to warn that at the moment that eventuality is far more likely than not; albeit not so much through any degree of complacency in Parliament. In fact, almost the reverse is true, more from an increasing awareness that the issue has become too hot to hold.
To protect against a no-deal Brexit: that is why the matter should now be returned to the country, as a number of noble Lords have advocated. Parliament would then have a clear mandate to deploy one of three alternatives: the Prime Minister’s current plan, no deal or remain. It has been alleged that it would not be procedural, and that it would be wrong to do this. Until last month, that caution had some force. Now it no longer does. For, conversely, it would be highly irresponsible and far worse for Parliament to drift into no deal without public consent, irrespective of a possible convincing public demand not to return this to the country. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, my noble friend Lady Altmann and others have stressed.
As noble Lords have also mentioned, there is now much more information and knowledge on the consequences of EU withdrawal than was the case in 2016. To avoid a no-deal Brexit, if consulting public opinion is the right action, there is also the corollary to that, and the prospect of a much better direction, one of stronger unity among parliamentarians and improved public trust in them—and, towards the United Kingdom from those in Europe and beyond, of greater confidence and respect.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, this afternoon my son was in Parliament with his geography class from school. Next month, he will be 18 years old. Our older daughter turned 18 in October 2016. Neither had a vote in the June 2016 referendum. Both will now have a vote. Like them, there are 2 million youngsters who did not have a say in their future and who still do not have a say.
We are told—we have heard it in this debate—that we have to respect the will of the people and we have to respect democracy. Democracy is holding this country to ransom with a vote from three years ago. The electorate have changed, demography has changed and, as we are told time and again, in the 2017 election, implementing Brexit was in the manifestos of both parties. People vote in elections for lots of different things; there are hundreds of items in manifestos, and to say that they voted just because “Brexit will be implemented” was in a manifesto is absolute nonsense. Governments also change their mind after elections about their manifestos, and people change their mind. After all, the PM said that there would be no election to start off with. Then we had the vote that was lost by 230 in the other place—the biggest defeat in history—so now the Prime Minister has changed her mind and has backed the Brady amendment. In fact, she now has a reputation for turning. Time and again, her red lines have become pink. She does not just turn; she pirouettes, but not as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who made a brilliant speech earlier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, said that we must obey the will of the people and their instructions but as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said clearly, we are a representative democracy. For Nick Boles MP, 60% of his constituency voted to leave yet he has the guts and the bravery to go with his opinion on a Norway-plus option. That is representative democracy, because he thinks it is in the best interests of his constituents and of the country. On that theme, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said that in the other place there should really be a free vote when it comes to the meaningful vote.
What about the 48%? There were 17.4 million who voted leave—52%—but what about those 16.1 million? This is the tyranny of the majority. In normal election cycles, every five years people get a chance to change their minds. Most importantly, next week it will be three years since the referendum was announced. People then had four months to make up their minds on an issue of the utmost complexity, covering more than 40 years, which was not even one of the top 10 issues in people’s minds at that time. Yes, the NHS was there, as were taxes, infrastructure and education, but not the EU. People had to learn about it and decide in four months. They voted for various reasons and, yes, people were deceived—on both sides, arguably. Of course the migration crisis was at its peak in 2015, something that was milked by UKIP during the election. Where is that migration crisis today? As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, concerns about immigration are at their lowest in 16 years. The world has changed and the facts have changed.
Just today those at Migration Watch UK, of all people, released the claim that immigration will actually increase if Brexit takes place. It said that the average of 250,000 will almost double and hit half a million—so much for reducing net migration. But analysis after analysis shows that the migration of 3.5 million EU people has brought net benefits to our economy, whichever way you look at it. These immigrants are not a drain on our public services; they support them. There are 130,000 of them working in the NHS and the care sector alone.
What about the claim that we have no control over EU migration? I have brought this point up and asked Ministers about it time and again. Finally, I got it in writing from the Government in December. In an Answer from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, the Government have now admitted in response to my Question that the 2004 regulation allows every EU country to repatriate EU nationals who have come in through free movement after three months, if it is shown that they do not have a job and cannot support themselves or are not in full-time education. We have never used this provision but other countries, such as Belgium, repatriate thousands of people every year. We have had control over EU migration. Why has that been hidden from the public? Finally, the Government acknowledged in writing, first, that this regulation exists; secondly, that they could use it; and, thirdly, that they never have. People are being conned. Why is this country not waking up to this nonsense?
People say that you cannot rerun a referendum—“We are where we are”—but what do we know now? Now we know that Northern Ireland is the Achilles heel of Brexit. The backstop is stalling everything. It is necessary for the Good Friday agreement and for the precious peace that we have in Northern Ireland. In fact, I would pay the £8 billion net a year that we pay to the European Union for the peace that it has brought over the last four and a half decades. But how much was Northern Ireland mentioned during the referendum? It barely was, yet now we know what a major issue it is.
The Government have lost by 230 votes, and now we know more in every area. We had an excellent debate here on security. There are databases that we use every day, let alone having access to Galileo. We have looked things up 500 million times on one European Union security database alone, and there are many others. What is to happen if this is not sorted out? The security of our citizens, the most important priority for any Government, is jeopardised by the nonsense that is Brexit. On consumer rights, now we know that our consumer protections are also being diminished. Which? magazine says that in a no-deal situation, there would be a bonfire of consumer rights and protections.
I am proud to be the president of the UK Council for International Student Affairs. We know that 130,000 out of 450,000 international students here are entitled to home student fees, home student loans and the right to remain here indefinitely after they study. If there is no deal and this issue is not sorted out, analysis says that there will be a decline of 57%. As a university chancellor, I say that the effect on all our universities will be huge. What about the academics at our universities, 20% of whom are from the European Union? In this great country, with less than 1% of the world’s population, we produce 16% of the world’s leading research papers. Much of that world-beating research is because of the collaborations that we have, including with European Union universities.
Dominic Raab said that he did not realise how important the Dover-Calais corridor is, or how important frictionless trade is. But now we know, as does he, how important they are to our automobile industry, which relies on the one-hour just-in-time principle.
At Harvard Business School, I conducted a role play with one of the world’s experts in negotiations, Professor Deepak Malhotra, in which he played the Prime Minister. The scenario came down to, “She did her best; the EU did its best”, then because she knew that she would lose the vote in Parliament, she pulled it at the last minute. Does that sound familiar? It is exactly what happened in December. Our role play continued, with the only solution being that she would go back to the people and say, “I will implement whatever you want, unlike my predecessor”. We would then have a people’s vote as a result, and if we did then I bet that we would have a 60% remain vote. Instead, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said in an excellent speech, we are now in a holding pattern and waiting for the announcement “Ten minutes to landing”, except that we have 44 days left and no deal is still being held out as a threat by the Government to the EU and to Parliament.
The European Union negotiators are painted as the bad guys. We have heard in this debate that they are the ones being intransigent—but it is nothing like that. They have in fact been entirely consistent throughout; they have a mandate from the 27 countries and they are holding the line. It has taken two years to negotiate three items covering 600 pages, yet the political declaration—the framework—has less than two years to be negotiated. It is 26 pages long and it is full of platitudes and a wish list.
We are going into a blindfold Brexit. This can has been continually kicked down the road, “To infinity, and beyond”. The uncertainty this has caused for investment in this country has been tragic. The lowest growth rates in our history are forecast for the next five years, at less than 2%. Other countries have looked upon the UK as a gateway to Europe and the investment that flowed into that gateway is now being jeopardised.
Then we hear the nonsense about going global. Dr Fox said that we would have trade deals signed at the stroke of midnight. Supposedly, four are ready, including one with the Faroe Islands—big trade partners of ours. What about the 50% of trade that exists at the moment with the European Union? It may be declining but it is still 50% of our trade: approximately 45% of our exports and 55% of our imports. On top of that, 17% to 18% of our trade comes from free trade agreements through the European Union’s deals with over 50 countries. Two-thirds of our existing trade, therefore, is with and through the European Union. Then we are saying that all these other trade deals will just roll over. Dream on. The Japan-EU trade deal, the biggest in world history, took years; the Canadian one took eight years. They are not going to roll over a trade deal with a bloc of 500 million people—the biggest trading bloc in the world—to a country of 65 million people and a much smaller economy. It does not work like that; that is not the real world.
Some say that we should be doing more with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, including India, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, makes up less than 10% of our current trade. India has only nine bilateral free-trade agreements, and not one with the western world. Try doing a free trade deal with India with the hostile immigration attitude that we have at the moment. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, who is not in her place, said, “Look, in spite of Brexit we’re still doing so well”. Actually we are not doing that well. Our economy has stalled. In spite of being in the European Union for more than 40 years, until the referendum we were the fastest-growing economy in the western world. We were flying. We were at the top table: a global economy, respected by the whole world in spite of being in the European Union for 40 years at that stage.
The only way forward is for Brexit to be delayed. That is the only way. We have now heard that Olly Robbins was speaking in a bar in Belgium. I hope that he was drinking our King Cobra, which is brewed in Belgium, and I thank him for what he said. We must delay Brexit—tout de suite, à ce moment. We are beyond playing chicken with the EU and with our people and their livelihoods. There is too much at stake: it is irresponsible and unacceptable. Article 50 must be delayed immediately. The Prime Minister’s deal is as dead as a dodo. No deal should not now be an option. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is absolutely right.
To conclude, that leaves two options: the least worst, which is a Norway-plus deal, and the best, which is to go back to the people and have a people’s vote. Dr Victoria Bateman of Cambridge University was naked on Radio 4 earlier this week, with the words “Brexit leaves Britain naked” written on her. As I have said time and again, the people of this country have now seen that the Brexit emperor has no clothes.
Lord Saatchi (Con)
My Lords, my aim today is to put the case that the time has come for your Lordships’ House to consider a slightly more assertive position on Brexit—a slightly more muscular role, perhaps. I draw your Lordships’ attention to two items now standing in my name on the Order Paper. The first is the EU Membership Bill introduced in December, reflecting the Lead Not Leave bipartisan campaign undertaken by me, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and Gina Miller—the remarkable campaigner who defeated the Government in the Supreme Court over the triggering of Article 50. The other is a Question for Written Answer that was tabled today. First, it asks HMG what assessment they have made of the proposals of the Lead Not Leave campaign, in particular the one that suggests moving from debating terms for leaving the EU to debating terms for remaining in the EU. Secondly, it asks HMG about the potential benefits of the UK remaining in the EU on the basis of guarantees of constitutional and institutional reform.
The point of both of these is that we have spent two years arguing about terms for leaving. How about spending two minutes on terms for remaining—remain-plus, let us call it? We all agree that we cannot remain as before—to remain now would be a national humiliation that would last a hundred years. We also know that we must not, in this House, put on airs and graces. We must not get too big for our boots. We know our place. We can ask HMG to think again, scrutinise, but never challenge. We have heard it all a hundred times before, for a hundred years: “Watch it, or we’ll set the Parliament Act on you!”.
So why change now from all that humility? We should because there was no mandate in the EU referendum. The decision made by the British people was, “We can’t decide. We’re not sure”. Unlike a general election, when the vote can be reversed at the next election, in this referendum the result is permanent. So one vote is not enough. That is why nobody is happy. Leavers do not want to be half-in and remainers do not want to be half-out.
For pointing that out in this House, as we have often done, we are routinely denounced as the “remain House”. We are accused of thwarting, obstructing and frustrating—those are the words used—what is called the sovereign will of the British people in the biggest vote in British democratic history. The last person who made that accusation against us was the then Liberal Prime Minister Asquith on 2 March 1911. Commending the Parliament Bill to the House of Commons at Second Reading, Mr Asquith made the following statement about us:
“Take the hereditary principle. What can we get out of it? Honourable Gentlemen opposite—”
he was speaking of the Conservative Party—
“have got a great deal out of it … a practical working instrument … to frustrate and nullify the functions of this House”.
Then the Prime Minister said, of the hereditary principle:
“Let it not be our master. So say we. It is because it has been our master—because it enslaves and fetters the free action of this House—that we have put these proposals before the House, and we mean to carry them into law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/1911; col. 584.]
It is clear from that passage that the Parliament Act 1911 was fuelled overwhelmingly by the hostility of the Government of the day towards the power of the hereditary Peers. However, as we all know, that position changed when the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the hereditary Peers from the House. We were then told—were we not?—by the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that your Lordships’ House was now “more democratic”, “more legitimate” and more authoritative.
Of course that is true. Your Lordships’ House has the expertise to help the House of Commons in the awesome task of leaving the EU. I was grateful to my noble friend the Minister for encouraging this House to, as he said, contribute to the deliberations of another place. That is because during the ping-pong on the EU withdrawal Act, there was much toing and froing about the meaning of “meaningful vote”. Section 13 of the withdrawal Act, to which the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition has drawn attention in her Motion, sets out the steps that must be fulfilled in domestic law before the UK can ratify a withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU. Section 13(1)(d) specifies that a withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU cannot be ratified unless,
“an Act of Parliament has been passed which contains provision for the implementation of the withdrawal agreement”,
in domestic legislation. Of course, the usual powers of the House of Lords in respect of passing Acts of Parliament would apply.
It is also worth pointing out that the Commons and the Lords have different powers under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG, I think it is called—in relation to the process for ratifying treaties. But, having said that, the Prime Minister indicated in the Commons yesterday that provision might have to be made in the withdrawal agreement Bill—the legislation required to implement the withdrawal agreement in domestic law, which must be passed before the withdrawal agreement can be ratified—to vary the normal requirements of CRaG if there was insufficient time. Perhaps the Minister will clarify what that means later.
In the meantime, given all that, is it not reasonable for this House to try to help another place with Brexit? Why now? It has to be said that the other place has not covered itself in glory on the issue of leaving the EU. Of course, the House of Commons has used its best endeavours, but the result is a 585-page document which nobody likes and which will never, whatever happens to it, heal the divisions in the country.
As I hope I have explained—but your Lordships all know it anyway—we can help. Will your Lordships join me in encouraging HMG and my noble friend the Minister to do what they should have done the day after the referendum? This is not crying over spilt milk because it is not too late. Here is the deus ex machina which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, wants to see arise. This is the conversation that should happen tomorrow. There are only two characters on the stage in this play: Us and Them. “Us” is the British Prime Minister; “Them” is the German Chancellor and the French President. The European Commission officials in Brussels do not appear, as they are minor players in this final scene, which I shall now perform for your Lordships. I shall start with “Us”, the British Prime Minister.
“Us: I know it annoys you to set a precedent. I don’t want any special treatment, you know.
Them: Really? So what do you have in mind?
Us: I’m not asking for any exceptions for us. All I want is a few changes for the benefit of all fellow members.
Them: All members? From you? You think only of yourself. You’ve been sulking for years. Variable geometry! Two-speed Europe! Opt-outs!
Us: Yes, sorry about that.
Them: Well, what is it you want?
Us: We don’t want anything. We’re leaving anyway. But you keep saying how very sad you are to see us leaving.
Them: All right, all right. So what would it take for you to stay?
Us: Well, why didn’t you ask before? Now you mention it, only two things.
Them: Go on.
Us: First, equality with Germany in voting. Not to be a subordinate. Not a junior member.
Them: What else?
Us: We want to recognise free movement of people. But also legitimate concerns among member states about uncontrolled immigration.
Them: Is that it? Anything else?
Us: No, nothing else. That’s it. Let’s call it remain-plus.
Them: Then you’d stay?
Us: Yes.
Them: And what do we get out of it?
Us: You get what you always wanted. Unity. No breakaways. No precedent for anyone else. We all stick together. Peace. Security. And the EU to be a vanguard force. A frontier spirit. An economic power equal to America and China. What say you?
Them: OK! Done! It’s a deal! Let’s go! When do we start?”.
At this point, some noble Lords may ask, “Why would they do that? Why would the EU ever accept that?”. My answer is that they have a big motive. In France, 40% of the population are apparently interested in “Frexit”. Austria, Greece, Italy and France will apparently all express their unhappiness with the present EU set-up in the forthcoming Euro elections. The current front-runner to replace Mr Juncker as the President of the EU Commission, Mr Manfred Weber, says:
“Brexit is absolutely an example that people can see in reality ... why our main message for the EPP campaign is that it’s better to reform the European Union where we need a reform, than to leave or even destroy it”.
So there you have it. We in your Lordships’ House will step up to the plate. We in your Lordships’ House will reframe the debate. We in your Lordships’ House will save the nation from two more years—or perhaps five more years, as we have heard—of turmoil and unhappiness.
I look to my noble friend the Minister. As I have said to him many times before on these long EU occasions, I do not know how he does it. I am sure that the whole House shares my affection and respect for my noble friend and I look forward to his wise and thoughtful response to remain-plus.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is well known for providing some very interesting ideas. We thank him for many of his suggestions. I am glad that he comes to the same conclusion as I think most Members of this House will do in this debate, have done in previous debates on this subject and will continue to do in the future.
Fortunately and agreeably for this House, it is only a minority of Members who do not seem to understand the functioning of the EU. Such people therefore produce a lot of criticism which is unfounded and inaccurate. Let us take once again the huge concept of sovereignty and what it really means. At the moment, the EU is a collection of 28 genuinely sovereign countries. All of them have their own intrinsic sovereignty, none of which has been reduced by membership of the EU, except by decisions of those sovereign countries working through integrated institutions and treaties decided by unanimity to limit some of their separateness in sovereignty to increase the general strength of the whole Community. The general sovereignty of the whole Community and the Union grows as a result of those decisions gradually and step by step. Treaties are freely entered into without any major aggro or difficulty. There are always lots of discussions and arguments about detail, but some of those matters of detail do not have to be decided by unanimity. As we know, they can then be subject to the subsidiarity effect of majority voting and the directives that allow a sovereign member state to produce its own legislation on a particular agreed policy.
I cannot understand what the anxiety is. A colleague such as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, is an example of someone who misunderstands all that and is fearful of a lack of sovereignty. There is no such lack; it is a gradual, total increase all the time of both the national sovereignty of the more important member states as a result of their collective membership of the Union and the Union’s collective sovereignty, which grows at the same time. Why do the other 27 never express any anxiety about this concept of sovereignty? It is very logical, based on common sense and unique in the world, which is why it is magic to many people. It is a pity that people here—not many, but some—wish to live in a past of old-fashioned, pretend sovereignty or pictorial sovereignty, which has no substance in the modern world. The modern world is interconnected and international, with all people of all kinds working together. Foreigners are in different countries in ever greater numbers. The more there are, the better and more exciting it is. As Ken Clarke famously said, we need more foreigners because they make British society more exciting. That is a perfectly acceptable remark. I hope that colleagues who do not have such anxieties about sovereignty might explain it better to those still worried about it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his remarks. He is not here at the moment, but his speech mirrored amazingly the remarks that he made eight months ago, in July last year, when he said that we are heading for crashing out unless things are taken into control and brought into proper order.
I was in the Commons for 27 years and, after an interval of seven years outside Parliament, have been in the Lords for more than 14 years. I can honestly say that I have never before had the sad misfortune of witnessing the outrageous behaviour of a Prime Minister in exceeding all norms of civilised conduct and intelligent restraint in the ruthless pursuit of the narrowest part of their own party’s interests. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but it is true. I have never experienced it before over all those years of all the Prime Ministers that we have had of whatever party.
Of course, some people would say, maybe fairly, that Mrs May was entitled to pursue “Brexit means Brexit” immediately after taking over from David Cameron following his colossal mistakes, in that period after what is now viewed by many as an imperfect referendum process—that was not the public’s fault; it was that the construction of the referendum exercise was totally flawed and mistaken. She had the right to do that only until the fatal and fateful 8 June 2017 election result. At that stage we need to remind ourselves that she completely and utterly lost the mandate of “Brexit means Brexit”. Already people in the country were experiencing second thoughts anyway. Instead Mrs May, amazingly and unbelievably, launched an outrageous and squalid deal with the most unpopular party in the Commons, the right-wing extremists of the Ulster unionist clique in the DUP, to create an artificial majority. In civilised countries with a written constitution, that would mostly have been ruled out of order by the relevant constitutional court or council of state anyway; but not in this country, because we have bandit politics because of no written constitution, as we know. The Government created an artificial majority with right-wing extremists from Northern Ireland who, incidentally, oppose all modern human and civil rights for modern women; and there was a huge £1 billion bribe as well. As one famous magazine, the New Statesman, said on 28 January:
“Mrs May could have used this crisis as an opportunity. Having secured no mandate for her Brexit policy, she could have reached out to parliament and sought to forge a cross-party consensus with all the opposition parties. Instead, she bought the support of the reactionary DUP and indulged her party’s Europhobes”.
Only after a historic defeat and at this perilously late hour has Mrs May now finally at least pledged to pursue a cross-party approach, which now looks totally insincere and ungenuine. It is now already too late for her to do this.
What Parliament must do now is to secure an extension of time beyond 29 March. Kenneth Clarke, when it was all first promulgated, always thought it was a fundamental mistake to have the date put in at that stage and objected to it, and quite rightly so. Then there was the famous amendment by Dominic Grieve. We now need to work for a people’s vote to sort out this catastrophic shambles, because the whole world is unfortunately and tragically laughing at Britain.
Staying in the EU would end the historical mistakes and our condescension over Ireland—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for his contribution in this respect today. That has been one of our tragedies in this country. I am glad that the condescension in people’s voices towards Irish people when they addressed them and so on has now at long last disappeared—from most people, anyway. Commitment to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland must unshakeably be maintained, because it is a solemn and sacred promise and there would be mayhem and trouble if it were not.
On all the intelligent analyses and examinations of recent figures, the various polls now show a huge change in public opinion, especially among the large number of younger voters—not just the ones who still support the Labour Party, despite Jeremy Corbyn’s mistakes, but others as well, including our British citizens living in other EU countries who have been there for more than 15 years and were arbitrarily denied the vote in the last referendum; that is a shameful fact. If the public accepted the final verdict of Parliament in this mayhem and confusion, that would be a marvellous result from the point of view of restoring the authority and sovereignty—yes, sovereignty—of the British Parliament, mainly, of course, expressed in the House of Commons. But if that is not enough because of the terrible, tearing crisis that has been caused in this country to people’s confidence in politicians and the political class, we need to get on to the concept of a people’s vote.
Finally, I quote Dominic Grieve, who has been very brave in all this in the House of Commons. Writing in the Evening Standard on Monday, he said:
“The next weeks are likely to be decisive in this respect”—
the respect that I have been discussing. He continued:
“The opportunity exists for the House of Commons to rise to this crisis and show the common sense that could get us out of difficulty. But that means putting aside the shallow considerations of party political advantage and having the courage to be honest with others as to what is happening. Insisting that all will somehow be well if Brexit goes through now, rather than insisting on a pause and a measured reconsideration, is an abdication of our responsibility”.
If the MPs can rise to the occasion that Dominic Grieve wants to see, that will be, in our history, the second of our finest hours.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. I was delighted to hear his positive comments on immigration.
Today’s Motion refers to the,
“ongoing discussions with the European Union”;
“interminable” might be a more appropriate adjective. If kicking the can down a dead-end street was an Olympic sport, we would have a gold medal winner. But it is not a sport. Brexit has become a constitutional crisis. I am staggered by the contempt with which Parliament is being treated in this process. It has now been suggested that the real meaningful vote on any deal might be put back until just days before exit day. That would be a travesty. I would support anything they can do in the other House to bring back some parliamentary control over this process. Brexit is not a sport, a mere matter of tactics— which seems to be the way it is being played at the moment. It is about our place in the world, and every day this fiasco goes on our stature in that world is being damaged, as is our economy.
Some noble Lords might have taken heart this morning from banner headlines. The Daily Telegraph trumpeted:
“Bank chief says Brexit can kick-start golden era of trade in contrast to earlier warnings”.
The Sun told its readers that the Governor of the Bank of England admits that Brexit could “spark a golden era”. I fear that Mark Carney has not discovered a new vat of optimism. These headlines were exactly like the deftly edited posters that appear outside theatres. The reviewer wrote that the play was “stunning in its ham-fisted approach, the acting amazing in its mediocrity”, and the poster simply boils down the review to “stunning, amazing”. Alas, the speech from which Mark Carney’s “golden era” was extracted was a heavyweight one on global trade, delivered yesterday in the City. On reading it, the phrase “golden era” seemed to be missing; the closest I could find was:
“Brexit can lead to a new form of international co-operation and cross-border commerce”.
Well, that must be a possibility. But in the meantime, the governor pointed out that:
“With fundamental uncertainty about future market access, UK investment hasn’t grown since the referendum was called and has dramatically underperformed both history and peers”.
The Telegraph and the Sun are cherry-picking on a heroic scale. They have been taking lessons from our Brexit negotiators, and they are misleading the public still in pursuit of their Brexit ideal.
Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics reeled off a set of gloomy numbers, including a 0.4% drop in GDP. We are already getting poorer. A trade deal with the Faroe Islands will not save us, although at least it amounts to some progress for Dr Fox. It is also great news for lovers of crustaceans. Our main imports from the Faroe Islands—£200 million of them—are fish and crustaceans. Our GDP, however, is not going to benefit hugely from this deal. In 2017, our trade deficit with the Faroes was £167 million. We buy £200 million-worth of their shellfish; they buy just £33 million-worth of goods from us. So it is a trade deal, but hardly a triumph.
The time has come to stop this nonsense. Opinion polls now show a consistently significant majority in favour of remaining in the EU. Yet the Prime Minister persists in pursuing Brexit, even declaring it, as my noble friend Lady Altmann reminded us, her “sacred duty”. I applaud her sense of duty, but I see the Government’s duty as safeguarding the best interests of this country, not deliberately leading it into decline. Where is the sense in pursuing this crazy course? It is, one might say, “Jacob’s folly”. Follies, I remind the House, are rich men’s fantasies. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, they are, “costly, generally nonfunctional”. Why on earth are we indulging this rich man’s folly when it is clear that it is already endangering the livelihoods of ordinary working people and will further impoverish them?
As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others have pointed out, European workers are quitting the UK in droves every day—nurses, doctors, vets and even vegetable pickers. The cost of a broccoli harvester, I am told, is now up to £13.50 an hour. The effects on broccoli prices are soon going to be feeding through into the shops: your five a day will soon be costing you a great deal more.
It is not just the economic effects of Brexit that we have to be conscious of. One of our major cultural institutions had until recently 40% of its front of house staff from overseas. It is losing them at a rate of 2% a month and one of the reasons they are going is because they are encountering such hostility. People are horrible to them because they have foreign accents. It is so bad that the institution has offered to swap their name badges, which currently have just their Christian names on, for one with a name of their choice, so that instead of Emile they might choose to be Len and they might get a better reception that way. We have become a horribly xenophobic country in some quarters, but what are we doing pandering to that tendency? We should be fighting it, not being bullied by it.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister held a conference call with business leaders. They made very clear to her that the possibility of no deal should be taken off the table straightaway. They stressed the need for certainty. The withdrawal agreement gives them no certainty at all. It is better than no deal, but it promises, as others have said, years of more negotiations, and the one thing that is certain is that while those negotiations go on we will continue to see business and investment drift away from this country. Parliament is spending all its time pursuing a course that, even if it succeeds, amounts to failure.
I do not think that I have ever done this before, but I want to quote the very thoughtful recent words of the Leader of the other place, Andrea Leadsom. She wrote:
“my constituents … are increasingly concerned that the business case is being undermined from all angles, and the basis for which Parliament gave its support to the project may no longer exist”.
She mooted the idea that it might be wise therefore to abandon the entire project. How wise. When new evidence appears, sensible people respond to it and, day by day, the damage that any Brexit does becomes more apparent. To be fair to Mrs Leadsom, she was actually referring to HS2, but she has seen the light over that and if she can see the light over that, I hope she might see the wisdom in applying similar logic to Brexit. The case made for it was flawed. The evidence has changed.
The public should be given the opportunity to vote against Jacob’s folly. I dislike referenda for the same reasons as my noble friend Lord Cormack, but when you have got into a mess through a referendum, the only way out may well be another referendum. Otherwise, we just pursue a course of self-harm. To leave without a deal would be disastrous, and that is why I shall be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, this evening.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I have never heard her make a bad speech: every speech I have heard her make has been brave, powerful and funny and that was no exception.
I am also glad to be in quite a small band in this Chamber tonight of people who have not made a contribution to this European Union debate before. I am in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and my very good friend Lord Puttnam, and I regard it as very good company indeed. Although I did not agree with everything the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said, I am very pleased to be in his company.
It has been an incredibly gloomy debate because this House feels that we are in the waiting room with absolutely nothing happening except the can being kicked down the road. We rightly think that our influence on events is quite minor. Again, we are right about that. I rather disagree with the procedural urging from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for us to take a more assertive role; I do not think that we should. Our power, such as it is, is to persuade and to make clear what the real choices are.
Although there have been quite a number of gloomy speeches, some of which, indeed all of which, were excellent, I suspect some have been delivered before, in various guises. There is nothing wrong with that—they were so good that they were well worth delivering again—but there were also quite a few things said that I did not know and that may well influence events, at least to some extent.
In my speech, I simply want to make two points. The first is that the debate that is now reaching a critical stage should be conducted in an honest and not a dishonest way. I have three particular dishonesties that are currently gripping this debate. The first is that the choice that faces the country is between some version of Mrs May’s deal and no deal. That is not correct. If the Commons says no to the deal, it will plainly be open to Her Majesty’s Government to ask for more time, and the indications are that the European Union would say yes to more time. I do not know how long, but I think it would be very unwise of this country to say that, if we cannot get Mrs May’s deal through, we should go for no deal.
Do not forget the objective choice that would then face the United Kingdom if there were no deal: we would have the choice of trading on World Trade Organization terms, which is likely to increase tariffs on goods by about 5%, leading to unemployment that will obviously affect people employed in manufacturing industries most, so that the poorest will be likely to be the worst affected. We could try to get around that—and the Government will have to make a decision about this—by saying, “Let us liberalise all trade and have no tariffs on goods and make that a unilateral decision”. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, nodding his head vigorously. The consequence of that is that there are no trade deals to be done. America and Japan are not going to offer us trade with no tariffs, and they will not need to negotiate terms with us. So we open our doors and we will get some benefits from that, but the whole of the Brexit idea, as far as the Brexiteers are concerned, on trade—namely, that we will negotiate marvellous terms with everyone else—will not happen. That is the choice that will have to be made if we go for no deal.
I urge the Government—this is why I strongly support the Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, this evening—to rule out no deal. She can do that by saying that, if we cannot make a deal, we will come back and ask for more time. I am not in favour of asking for a long period of time. I think two to three months is all that should be required. The nation is not helped by this period going on for a long time. But the debate should not be framed as Mrs May’s deal versus no deal.
The second dishonesty is that there is a realistic prospect of getting some sort of changes to the backstop. We know that the Prime Minister urged the House of Commons to vote for the Brady amendment, the terms of which required the replacement of the backstop with “alternative arrangements” that would deliver an open border. The three proposals that she is making in these negotiations are: that there be a time limit for the backstop—the Irish Government have made it clear that they would not accept that, quite rightly, because it would not be a backstop; that the United Kingdom have a unilateral exit, which is equally problematic for the same reasons; and that the whole backstop be replaced by something else—I do not know what; possibly the Malthouse compromise.
The Malthouse compromise involves the United Kingdom entering into a customs agreement with the European Union that there be no tariffs on goods, which is perfectly possible. As everybody in the House will understand, it does not obviate the need for a customs border, because you have to check where the goods come from to see if they are entitled to the no tariff. The answer, not from Mr Malthouse—obviously a totally admirable chap who has simply brought these people together—but from the people advancing this nutcase compromise, is that there will be technology that makes it clear from which country these goods come. That is how the Malthouse compromise deals with the customs aspect.
As for the regulation aspect, what Mr Malthouse proposes—not him, but other people—is that there be an agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom that both sides be deemed to have the same regulatory position. They advanced that case on the basis that we have the same regulatory position at the moment and it is not likely to change that much over the period of time, so let us therefore just treat the regulations as the same. It is clear what is being asked for. It is completely hopeless as a proposition, because the European Union is rightly saying that it cannot have a flapping open door if we are not in the customs union or the single market. That is a flapping open door.
I do not know how the alternative discussions are going. I understand—I could be wrong about this—that Mr Stephen Barclay, a person for whom we should have the highest admiration because he has taken on the job at short notice, is the person negotiating the alternative arrangements to the backstop. Blimey! How did we end up with a totally inexperienced Minister, through no fault of his own, seeking to negotiate one of the most important negotiations we have ever indulged in since 1945? I suspect—I hope the Minister will be able to help me on this—that no meaningful negotiations to replace the backstop are going on. Could he tell us how the negotiations are going, first of all on a time limit to the backstop and secondly on a unilateral exit for the United Kingdom? What stage has been reached? Are any drafts in existence? What has the European Union’s attitude to these proposals been?
The third dishonesty is that all of this can be dealt with by 29 March. The number of people in the House who have made it clear that that is impossible demonstrates that that is a dishonesty on which we should not proceed.
What should we do now? What is wrong with Mrs May’s deal? There is really only one thing wrong with it: that she has given away our biggest negotiating card, namely the budget deal, in exchange for what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, described as simply no agreement at all. We need certain things nailed down in that political declaration. The things we need nailed down are: first, that we stay in a customs union, because the less friction there is in trade, the better; secondly, that we get the benefit of integrated supply lines, so we get a deal whereby there will not be regulatory checks; and, thirdly, in relation to the main goods we deal with—medicines, chemicals and aerospace—that there are deals whereby our goods and theirs can cross the channel without customs or regulatory checks of any sort. That is not pie in the sky. Those things could have been put into the political declaration. They have not been, because Mrs May has spent since 17 December 2017 until now trying to unscramble the problem she got this country into as a result of the agreement she entered into on 17 December 2017.
We stand at a moment where it is not too late to get a good deal. I was strongly in favour of remain, and I am strongly against a second referendum. We have to respect the result of the referendum, but we should do a deal that gives us the softest Brexit possible, and it is not too late.
Viscount Ridley
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I wish to make a simple point about accountability. My noble friend the Minister was generous in his opening remarks about the work of this House, and I would like to repay the compliment. My noble friend has spent hundreds of hours in this Chamber being accountable to us, however unreasonable, long-winded and bad-tempered our speeches. I salute his stamina, patience and skill. He and his colleagues are democratically accountable. Where is the same level of accountability of Mr Juncker, Mr Tusk, Mr Selmayr and Mr Barnier? They work for us too. How often do they show up in the British Parliament? Never. Or the European Parliament, for that matter—once in a blue moon. Why is this? British taxpayers contribute to their salaries, £350,000 tax-free in the case of Mr Juncker. In fact, when you think about it, it is a bit odd that the Commission is negotiating on behalf of 27 members against one. How did that happen? Should the Commission not have said, “We cannot arbitrate between our bosses, so we’ll stay out of this”?
Last week Mr Juncker and Mr Leo Varadkar allowed themselves to be filmed cooing over a card sent by an Irish citizen. Part of the message in that card said:
“Britain does not care about peace in Northern Ireland”.
This is blatantly untrue and disgracefully disrespectful to many who have given their lives and their bodies to try to preserve peace in Northern Ireland. More than that, it is a very odd thing to endorse about a country that is not an enemy and not even an ally, but still a member.
Last Sunday my old colleague Andrew Marr said this at the start of his television programme:
“I just want to say one thing about our line-up of interviews. We are at a moment where negotiations with Brussels are absolutely critical, and it has been a long moment. And week after week I get the chance to cross-question British Ministers and opposition politicians. And week after week, we ask the likes of Donald Tusk, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker to answer questions as well. And week after week they say no. We try. We keep trying”.
Yesterday the EU’s ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, published a report about the appointment of Martin Selmayr. I would like to read part of it:
“This complaint-based inquiry concerned the appointment of the European Commission Secretary-General, Martin Selmayr, in 2018 … Following an extensive inspection of Commission documents and written questions put to the Commission as part of the inquiry, the Ombudsman identified four instances of maladministration in the handling of the appointment and made a recommendation … Following the Ombudsman’s findings, the European Parliament in December 2018 passed a resolution calling on the new Secretary-General to resign … The Commission’s reply to the Ombudsman’s recommendation presents no new information and does not alter the inquiry findings, which showed in detail how Mr Selmayr’s appointment did not follow EU law, in letter or spirit, and did not follow the Commission’s own rules”.
Lord Balfe
Would the noble Viscount like to comment on the recent appointment of the British Cabinet Secretary?
Viscount Ridley
No, because I do not know the details, but I have not heard that it broke any rules. I have not actually finished the quote, which goes on:
“It is highly regrettable that the Juncker Commission chose not to implement this recommendation. The Ombudsman looks forward to its implementation by the next Commission”.
Good luck with that, because we all know who is going to be pulling the strings in the next Commission —Mr Selmayr. We are asked to put our faith in a good faith pledge from an organisation that will not even obey its own rules. We should remember that Mr Selmayr was the prime suspect behind the—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Allow me to correct an error. Mr Juncker regularly appears before the European Parliament where in the past he has been heckled by Nigel Farage, who I am sure the noble Viscount feels is doing his best to hold him to account. That is part of what the Commission has to do and the European Parliament is part of that accountability mechanism. Of course, the European Union is a 28-member country, therefore accountability is complex, but it is not entirely absent.
Viscount Ridley
If the noble Lord reads Hansard he will find that I did say that he appears before it—I said “once in a blue moon”. There is no question that he appears before it an awful lot less than my noble friend Lord Callanan appears before us, which was my point.
Viscount Ridley
Did the noble Lord say from a sedentary position that my noble friend does not smirk as much?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I did. Those of us on this side notice, I suppose I should say, the ironic expression which often flits across the noble Lord, Lord Callanan’s, eyes. I hope that that is a little more polite.
Viscount Ridley
I personally think that my noble friend Lord Callanan is extremely patient and polite in this House.
As I was saying, Mr Selmayr was the prime suspect behind the leak about a dinner in Downing Street, at which untrue and personal remarks were made about the Prime Minister. It is he who is keen to block the UK’s access to the Galileo satellites. The Napoleonic behaviour of the Commission gets more blatant every day. It is not just pursuing a so-called European system of protectionism like Bonaparte, but brushing aside democratic and accountability constraints in pursuit of the self-interest of an imperial bureaucracy.
Back in 2015, I did not want the UK to leave the EU. Naively, I did not know how the Commission carries on. I helped to edit a 1,000-page plan called “Change, or go”. The EU refused to change in response to David Cameron’s reasonable requests, so I concluded that we should go. I was reminded of those days by the excellent television series by Norma Percy over the last three weeks, which gave inside views of that renegotiation and the events that led up to it. It brought back memories of how much the Commission disliked Britain then, thought our affection for democracy was stupid and quaint, and how it kept wishing we would go away. Yet now it wants to stop us leaving.
The most sobering thing I have read today is from Jim Ratcliffe, Britain’s successful chemicals businessman. In an open letter to Jean Claude Juncker, he says:
“Nobody but nobody in my business seriously invests in Europe. They haven’t for a generation”.
He says the EU is scaring away investment with heavy green taxes, with Europe’s share of the world chemical market having halved to just 15% in the last 10 years. He says the EU has,
“the world’s most expensive energy and labour laws that are uninviting for employers”.
The UK’s growth last year was better yet again than Germany’s, France’s and Italy’s, so it is clear that the reason for our sluggish growth—and it is sluggish—is that we are still in the EU. It is precisely for the people at the bottom of the pay scale that we need to leave and rediscover growth and enterprise.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft worries about the wages of a broccoli picker going up lest it put up the cost of vegetables. If it means that broccoli farmers have to pay a little more so that people in the north of England can afford to work for them rather than seasonal workers from abroad, that is quite good for people at the bottom of the pay scale. That, I think, is why we are leaving.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. He does not do frictionless, in either debate or trade. In any case, I suggest that if he was surprised about the form which the withdrawal negotiations have taken, it can only be because he did not read Article 50 before we got going down this road. It is only about six lines; it is quite clear; and it was drafted by a Member of this House. It is a pity he did not read it first. If he had, he would have found out what the format of the negotiation would be.
Viscount Ridley
May I just point out that I was talking about 2015, long before the referendum? I did read Article 50 in the run-up to the referendum.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Well, that is very good, but I am sorry that the noble Viscount came to the conclusion that he did. It was available and there is no surprise in it. It was precisely what was laid down by a treaty, which this House, along with the other place, ratified not all that long ago. We seem to have a rather cursory attitude to the treaties that we enter into, but we should not have, because they matter.
Anyway, here we are, another week, another debate, which brings us no closer to an agreed and parliamentarily- approved outcome to this whole sorry saga. Two more weeks have gone by of not very useful activity by a Government who have not so much lost their way but never found it in the first place. If the Prime Minister is not deliberately aiming to run down the clock, she is giving an extraordinarily plausible imitation of someone who is doing so.
In the last two weeks, the Prime Minister has visited Brussels in an attempt to dismantle an international treaty provision to which she had agreed in good faith a mere two months ago. We agreed to it not once, but twice, because we agreed first in December 2017 and now again in November 2018. She told us in November 2018 that this was the best deal that was available, but I suspect her visit to dismantle that has been to no avail. She visited Belfast to tell a population that voted by a substantial majority to remain that leaving was going to be just fine—to no avail. She visited Dublin to persuade a Government to put their survival at risk—to no avail.
Meanwhile, on all sides we are seeing evidence, which is accumulating, of the serious damage that this policy of stubborn procrastination is inflicting on the economy. We have seen inward investment cut—that is Nissan. We have seen growth forecasts cut pretty sharply. We have seen ferry contracts for non-existent ferries axed. We have seen billions of public expenditure being squandered to give some pretence of credibility to a policy which should have been discarded months ago.
What is to be done, as Lenin once said in a rather different context? First, the option of leaving without a deal should be shelved now once and for all. The Government say that that cannot be done. That is simply untrue. It can be done by scrapping some of the Government’s red lines. It can be done by seeking a prolongation of the Article 50 cut-off period. It can be done by giving the electorate another say. Eschewing those options, as the Government do, which is totally legitimate on their part, does not mean that they cannot be carried out.
Secondly, not a single option available to us at this stage, not even approval of the Prime Minister’s plan, can actually be completed and implemented before 29 March. Talks should be initiated with the EU on a prolongation of that period, to which all 27 member states have to agree.
Thirdly, the option of another referendum should be recognised as providing the clearest route that is now available to us to achieving closure on this matter. The outcome of such a referendum could be made mandatory so as to avoid the risk of an endless process. Preparations for holding such a referendum could be put in hand quite quickly if the will was there to do it.
I agree that these are not easy choices but they are ineluctable ones and we are going to face them in the next few weeks. They should be made by the end of this month at the latest, and it is for that reason that I will support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register.
I am not certain whether one is permitted to use a term derived from another European language in these fractious times but there is an inevitable element of déjà vu, not only in this debate but at this critical time in this nation’s history. Even as the situation develops in new and usually perturbing ways, it is increasingly difficult to find new things to say, although I admire the skill of my noble friend Lord Saatchi, who certainly broke new ground in his contribution to this debate.
I have always been a great admirer of the negotiating skill of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, but I hope he will not mind if I say I wish he had been in charge at the material time but that I think it is too late to follow his advice now.
In order to avoid repeating myself, I thought it wise to cast my eye over the various speeches I have made in this place since the referendum result in June 2016. I was relieved to find, slightly to my surprise, that I have been following a remarkably consistent line: first, that we must accept the referendum result; that we must be mindful of the equivocal verdict of the British people in a general election less than a year later; and, perhaps most important of all, that there is a pressing need to address the underlying causes of the vote for Brexit and, in particular, to heal the scars that it will leave.
I have repeatedly called for moderation, for a new common ground. I do not think that has fallen on deaf ears as such but, sadly, the deafening siren call of party interest can too easily drown out the less strident tones of moderation. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on an outstandingly brilliant speech, one of several he has made on this subject.
As the intractable impasse over the border in Ireland overshadows us all, I listened carefully to the brilliant speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. Rather like her, I was drawn to that great Irish poet, WB Yeats. I have in mind his Second Coming, which says:
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world”.
We must not allow that to happen.
As many speakers have pointed out, in June 2016 no one voted to be poorer; no one voted to make our streets or our global environment more dangerous; no one voted to see the City of London relegated from the top of the international premier league to mid-table obscurity; and no one voted to have dark threats—almost incitement in some cases—of civil unrest, sometimes made by public figures who really ought to know better. None the less, those could be the consequences if we do not compromise now and work together in the public interest across traditional political boundaries.
Brexit was always going to entail a daunting process of negotiation. Despite the disingenuous assertions of some political figures, negotiation is by its very nature a multilateral, not unilateral, process. It requires engagement, skill and patience and cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion through an evocation of the Dunkirk spirit alone.
My message is simple: we should support the Prime Minister in her endeavours to honour the referendum and the commitments made in 2017, while also protecting our long-term economic and political stability and development. Furthermore, do not let us do so half-heartedly but with passion—the very passion that brought us all into public life in the first place—otherwise Yeats will indeed be casting a lugubrious shadow over us for a long time yet, with his terrible premonition that:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”.
Let us all hope that the second coming of the withdrawal agreement sees a coming together here, in the House of Commons and right across the nation—because then, and only then, shall we be able to move forward together once more.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I wrote this speech with the intention of being optimistic and constructive, and I have just about managed to hold on to that.
I hope by now that the House has given up on the notion that people do not know what is good for them and that we must rescue them from themselves. Those days are long since gone. Surely the European Union is not going to allege that it has to follow rules in all circumstances and cannot be flexible. Look at the appointment of Mr Selmayr, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said. Look at the rejection of migrant quotas across the Union, the building of fences between countries to keep out migrants and, above all, Mr Tusk’s Poland, which is breaking the rules on the environment, independence of the judiciary, independence of the press and without any sanction from the EU because Hungary is backing up Poland.
The exchange of correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr Corbyn should not be taken at face value, although it cannot be bad that they are at last in contact over our exit from the EU. I surmise that Mr Corbyn wants the UK to leave the European Union because continued membership might stymie some of the ideas he has for his potential premiership—for example, state aid rules. He admitted voting against membership in 1975; he opposed the Maastricht treaty and called it a bankers’ Europe; and he opposed the Lisbon treaty. I never thought I would say this but I agree with Jeremy. I believe that his letter is designed not to block Brexit but to ensure that if things go wrong he cannot be held responsible. His letter might also serve to undermine the Prime Minister’s negotiations in Brussels and divide the Cabinet. To these ends, he appears even to have abandoned his insistence on an end to free immigration. I do not think that this will hold.
The continuing uncertainty over the backstop should be seen as artificial, for it is clear that a border that satisfies safeguarding the territory of the Union is feasible. The Republic can work with the EU over the form. A customs union is not necessarily the answer, given the extensive delays on the Turkish-Bulgarian border. Nor should we be held to ransom by threats of renewed terrorism. The UK has always remained firm about not changing its policies in response to violence. I suspect the prolongation of dispute is part of a campaign by Ireland to achieve unification. Like it or not, if no technical solution to the border is achieved, or if we leave with no deal, the only solution in the end will be Irish unification, not now as dread a subject as it once was.
As we see the other place riding roughshod over conventions and proving that the Commons cannot and should not take control because it is as divided as the Government’s route to exit has ever been, and by displaying those divisions to the world, they are allowing Brussels to say that it does not know what we want and enabling it to ignore the obligation in Article 50 that,
“the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.
The Union has shirked its responsibility. Should we indulge it by extending Article 50? In this I rely on the opinion of Martin Howe QC, who has examined the legalities. It has been too readily assumed, even here this evening, that we have but to ask for an extension and it will be granted, or that a legal duty should be placed on the PM to secure this. It is not, however, ours for the asking. Under Article 50, the European Council, with unanimous agreement, is empowered to grant this. It would take into consideration the fact that there is a European parliamentary election due in May. Any extension beyond the summer would mean the UK’s inclusion in the elections, even though our seats have already been reallocated, and our remaining there for the next five years. A short extension of a few weeks would be pointless as the European Parliament, which is charged with consenting to the withdrawal agreement, is to be dissolved on 18 April. In the case of a longer extension, given that the consent of each European state would be required, it places each of them in a strong position to demand concessions and impose conditions on their consent. The Spanish will be thinking about Gibraltar, the French about fishing, and the Germans about getting larger contributions from us to the EU budget to alleviate their increased share. In sum, to demand an extension drastically weakens our negotiating position, opens us to blackmail and takes the pressure off the European Union to fulfil its obligation under Article 50. Moreover, this and other amendments are ignoring our constitution and have changed the status of the Speaker in the other place. The way in which these amendments are being handled is storing up problems for future Governments and legislation that opposition and rebellious government MPs do not like.
All those who want to take hard Brexit off the table—if ever there was a meaningless concept, that is one—seem to forget there is a perfectly sensible alternative, namely voting for the May agreement, even if it is not ideal. As I have said more than once in the past two years, we are one against 27 and it was bound to be the case that if the Prime Minister came back with a deal that was not liked by Parliament, and had to go back to the 27, they were unlikely to offer her a better one. Therefore, if we vote on the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it will not be a meaningful vote but meaningless. We cannot take no deal off the table unless there is an alternative. We cannot force the Government to comply with her wishes by the end of this month.
On treaties, noting a few days ago that France and Germany have re-entered another pact, I was reminded of what General de Gaulle said—in terms, I hasten to add, that would not be acceptable today—about the Franco-German treaty of 1963:
“Treaties are like roses and young girls. They last while they last”.
I turn to the escape mechanism I have mentioned before, which is backed by several international lawyers, including Professor Verdirame of KCL, and former First Parliamentary Counsel Sir Stephen Laws, but not by all. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides for withdrawal if, inter alia, it is implied by the nature of the treaty. Since the wording of the protocol is clear that the objective of the withdrawal agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship between the Union and the UK, but is meant to be temporary, this is indeed implied. The protocol specifies a best endeavours obligation to conclude an agreement that supersedes the protocol in whole or in part.
Best endeavours must surely be in doubt, bearing in mind the comments of Donald Tusk recently and the plain wish of the European Union to keep us in a permanent union. If the EU in future proceeds in a way that is intended to make the protocol permanent, one can conclude that the best endeavours obligation is being breached, which is a ground for withdrawal under Article 60 of the Vienna convention. The arbitration provisions in Article 170 of the withdrawal agreement do not remove the Vienna convention rights. The fact that the most distinguished lawyers are not in agreement over this gives one hope. This sort of disagreement lays the foundation for prolonged and serious litigation in the International Court of Justice, which will be very lucrative for our legal representatives and might be what is needed to jolt the European Union into settlement and action, so I encourage the Minister to proceed on the basis that the Vienna convention applies. After all, if one can leave the European Union on the application of Article 50, surely an agreement of lesser scope cannot be permanent and without external determination, so my guess is that round about 28 March a version of Mrs May’s agreement will pass and in future we will have to sort out the adverse consequences, if any.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am speaking in the gap, so I will be brief. The Government’s five words that have worried me most right from the beginning of these debates are, “the brightest and the best”, and there they were again in the very first paragraph of Sajid Javid’s opening speech in the Immigration Bill’s Second Reading debate last month in the Commons. To take the example of the creative industries, it is unlikely that artists and creatives, including other Europeans who have become established abroad already, will want to spend a great deal of time in a country where free movement is denied to its own citizens. This will be a fact if Brexit happens.
We have not had a debate about free movement in this country. Immigration is not the same thing, although the Prime Minister conflates them within her proposed immigration policy, with no thought at all about how this policy will affect the British themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said last week in Committee on the Trade Bill, trade is about people. It is about movement both ways, not just of goods but of people. The loss of free movement will be catastrophic for our service industries, whose importance, and whose future importance, is hugely underestimated, since the free movement of British people, including movement between other countries, is essential to their operation. This plain fact is being ignored by both the major parties. Those who think that protecting manufacturing is the only way to protect jobs, even if that is possible, should think again. Bartenders, chefs, workers at ski resorts, beauticians in holiday resorts, plumbers, IT workers, performers and musicians are just a few of the new mobile working class whose widely varied livelihoods must also be protected. Many of them are self-employed, and all of them are part of a sector that now represents 80% of the economy.
More essentially still, particularly among young people, free movement across Europe is an established democratic right. From the point of view of the left, free movement ought to be understood as a socialist objective. I take my cue here from the social philosopher André Gorz, who believed in an emancipatory socialism which maximises freedoms for all people, not one which hems people in, which is what Brexit in any form will do, except for the privileged few. For these reasons I hope that the Immigration Bill—a Bill that is unnecessary and destructive—is stopped when it reaches the Lords.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the UK is now fewer than 50 days away from the due date set by Brexiters for leaving the EU, but the Government are yet to bring forward a deal that commands a majority; nor have they proposed amendments to the withdrawal agreement that the EU can agree to. Yesterday’s Brexit Statement showed that nothing has changed. It just took us even closer to the scheduled exit day with no sign whatever of when or how the Brexit mess is going to be resolved.
The Prime Minister’s run-down-the-clock strategy is hidden in plain sight, although even before the eavesdropping on Olly Robbins it was obvious that she would have to ask for an extension to Article 50. The regret is that she lacks the honesty to acknowledge that, apparently preferring to inflict deep anxiety and pain on businesses as well as her fellow countrymen, who rely on vital medicines, need to know if they will still have a job on 30 March or want to make travel plans. For those who rely on nurses or carers who are EU citizens, the ending of free movement and the imposition of a £30,000 salary threshold is frightening. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, mentioned this, among many other things, in her excellent speech.
Mrs May said yesterday in the Commons that she had wanted everything “sorted before Christmas”. A riposte to that used somewhat unparliamentary language, perhaps understandably, since this was a blatant piece of economy with the truth. The Prime Minister herself kicked the can down the road, axing the meaningful vote scheduled for December in order to keep her extremists happy. She continues to do so. Over almost three years, the Prime Minister has dithered, delayed, prevaricated, obscured and wasted time at every stage, not least with a completely pointless election in 2017.
One of the obfuscations being practised by the Prime Minister is over the assertion that the words “alternative arrangements” already appear in the package. They are in the withdrawal agreement in the political declaration but in a completely different context from the so-called Brady amendment. In the deal, they describe arrangements that would be reached in the future relationship to supersede the backstop such that it does not have to kick in, not as a replacement for the guarantee that the backstop represents. The way that the Prime Minister is distorting the truth of that drafting is beneath her dignity.
Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay says, “We are committed to getting a deal”. The Prime Minister had a deal before Christmas. In January, she claimed that it was the only deal in town. She confirmed yesterday in her Statement that the EU was maintaining its position that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. She also said four weeks ago that the EU was not prepared to agree a unilateral exit or time limit and that any attempt to make such changes to the withdrawal agreement would risk other member states raising issues about fisheries access or Gibraltar. However, she said yesterday that both these things were among her asks. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that it was reasonable to seek these changes. Can he tell us whether we are still risking other member states raising fisheries access and Gibraltar?
Houdini has nothing on Theresa May and her Government. It is clear that reopening negotiations between Messrs Barnier and Barclay is simply smoke and mirrors designed to buy the Prime Minister time. Donald Tusk tweeted just a few hours ago:
“No news is not always good news. EU27 still waiting for concrete, realistic proposals from London on how to break #Brexit impasse”.
There is so much dishonesty from the Government. As Confucius apparently said:
“When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom”.
Thankfully, there are signs that MPs are breaking out of their cage of learned helplessness, because deliberate procrastination and keeping no deal in play have consequences in the real world. As the British Chambers of Commerce said today, and as my noble friend Lord Newby noted, it means that businesses risk,
“being left hung out to dry”.
How is that a responsible thing for a Government to do?
We are all familiar with the Brexit promise made by Trade Secretary Liam Fox that he would have 40 trade deals ready for one second after midnight on 29 March. That, of course, is the same Dr Fox who said that a free trade deal with the EU should be the “easiest in human history”. Other Brexit promises worth recalling include one from Michael Gove. In April 2016 he said:
“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want”.
John Redwood said in July 2016:
“Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy—the UK holds most of the cards”.
I am not sure how that has gone. In the same tradition, I am afraid, we now have the Prime Minister’s promise to maintain workers’ rights at an even higher level than that guaranteed in the EU. However, that was somewhat torpedoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who castigated EU labour laws, so I do not think that there is unity on the Tory Benches in regard to workers’ rights.
What exactly is this farce now about? Apparently it is about keeping the Conservative Party together, although the long-term prospects of that look slim—in fact, the party is completely incoherent. In the meantime, how many sacrifices is the country expected to make on the altar of that elusive Tory party unity?
For the Prime Minister to play games with the welfare of British citizens is, in my opinion, morally reprehensible. As one commentator put it today, Mrs May’s new addition to her well-worn vocabulary—an injunction to “hold our nerve”—might be good advice for a nation facing some terrible external threat but it is an absurdity when applied to an entirely self-inflicted fiasco.
The things that I am holding my nerve about are an extension to Article 50 and a people’s vote, because I think that the prospects of both are rising. The Prime Minister is allowing herself many bites at the cherry but refuses to allow the voters even one single chance to reassess whether her Brexit is such a great idea. This cannot hold and must change. Agreeing to the opposition Motion tonight is one step in achieving that change.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, considering the lessons of the Brexit debate, the CER’s Charles Grant starts with a dig—although it might have been a compliment—at the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He describes Article 50 as having been,
“designed to put the departing country in a weak position”,
but he then reckons that,
“the British damaged their already weak hand by putting incompetent and ignorant ministers in charge, by being horribly divided (in contrast to a united EU) and by taking two years to come up with a half-serious proposal for the future relationship”.
He then considers that,
“the biggest lesson … is that any effort to leave the EU will turn out to be … more complicated, time- consuming, expensive and damaging than its advocates ever suggested”.
That is not quite the phraseology of Donald Tusk but I think that the spirit is the same.
Meanwhile, the indecision rolls on. There are 44 days to go and no solution. No one has the foggiest idea how this will all play out. There is no “10 minutes to landing”, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The electorate, according to Lord Ashcroft’s polls, say that the problem is that Ministers,
“left their homework until Sunday night”.
We now witness the Prime Minister becoming the Oliver Twist of negotiations, not in demanding a better deal for the UK, which of course any Prime Minister should do, but in asking for something for herself—more time. On every occasion on which she comes to Parliament, it is to ask for more—another bowl of time to try to wriggle out of a deal which she signed and negotiated, which she first recommended to Parliament before then voting to change it, and which she now thinks she can get through only by running down the clock. She endlessly asks for time when what she really plans is to take the country to a very high mountain late next month, force it to look over without a parachute—the no-deal jump—and then offer her plastic wings of an inadequate deal to soften the landing on the rocks below. What is her advice to colleagues as they peep over? It is: “Hold your nerve”. What a kamikaze pilot.
We are partly on that cliff edge because the Prime Minister refused to start by building consensus, rather than learning lessons from the Anglo-Irish agreement process, which was described earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. Very late in the day she offered talks with the Opposition. What happened when the Opposition responded? Our leader wrote to the Prime Minister, setting out ways in which the deal might attract parliamentary approval through changes to the political declaration, not least to avoid a catastrophic crash-out which would damage business, commerce, travel, our diplomatic, trading and security relationships, and the future of our economy. What did he get in reply? A churlish, inaccurate opening paragraph, where, in response to some thoughtful points about the future, she instead falsely writes:
“It is good to see that we agree … not to seek an election or second referendum”.
Neither Labour nor this letter said anything of the sort. The letter was about the EU deal, making no mention of our much-wanted election, nor a potential referendum—bad politics, Prime Minister. It is a testimony to her own preoccupation with rows in her own party rather than the needs of the country.
More seriously, her letter made no mention of no deal and its avoidance, nor of any extension to the Article 50 timeframe. She dismissed the very inaccurate description of Labour’s call for “a” customs union, to reject “the” customs union, but as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, reminded me earlier, that was something Labour had never asked for. Indeed, a full free trade agreement could, under WTO definition, be a customs union, if it had a common external tariff, which the Article 24 option mentioned earlier would of course not include. It is likely that the full free trade agreement we will probably end up with will have a common external tariff—so that is where we will get to anyway.
I will respond to questions from the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Howell. First, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked where we get our briefing from, as though it were made up in the Library—not a bad place in which to make things up, mind you. I, and all the team working on Brexit, draw on detailed discussions with very seasoned trade negotiators, senior WTO officials and experts, dispute adjudicators and specialist trade lawyers. If anyone thinks we are doing this on the back of an envelope, I can tell them that that is absolutely not the case. I also say that, yes, we want to be part of a customs union and we wish the Government would discuss this more positively with us, rather than repeating that mantra of an “independent trade policy”, presumably in the belief of some golden goodies coming from the US. But what are those golden goodies? As my noble friend Lord Puttnam warned, American lobbyists are already demanding that any UK-US trade deal goes beyond just the chlorinated chickens we have heard about, to include changes in NHS drug rules, weaker data protection, carcinogens in pistachio nuts and lower food safety standards. Will the Government risk no deal for that?
One line in Jeremy Corbyn’s letter was not disputed by the Prime Minister: that there is,
“a clear majority in Parliament that no deal must … be taken off the table”.
It is obvious why: consider the immediate imposition of tariffs and checks, transport chaos and shortages of medicine and certain foods. It would be catastrophic for certain industries. Just today, we heard about a possible loss of jobs at Ford, because of the challenge to car manufacturing. A no-deal Brexit is,
“the biggest threat businesses have faced since 1939”,
according to one trade association, with the possibility that,
“one in four food exporters…could go out of business within six weeks”,
not least because meat exports, faced with over 13% WTO tariffs, simply become unprofitable. It is not just domestic producers—the Falkland Islands desperately needs to retain its tariff and quota-free access to the EU 27 markets, which take 94% of its fish, as it could not compete with 18% tariffs it would then have to pay, putting all its economy at risk. Mrs Thatcher would not have approved of such disregard of the Falklands.
The CBI’s Carolyn Fairbairn talks of near “negligence” for failing to resolve the political crisis, saying that,
“we really are in the emergency zone of Brexit…this is real danger time”.
Even David Davis seems to accept that danger, calling for a tax-cutting no-deal emergency budget. Chillingly, while acknowledging that sterling could fall by over 20%, he asks:
“Is this such a bad thing?”
Well, clearly not if you are rich and well paid, but on low fixed wages, as food prices soar, it might indeed be such a bad thing. I trust the Telegraph was not well briefed about government plans, codenamed Project After, because it says that these included slashing tariffs and cutting taxes. Less money for Government would mean diminished services, lower incomes, and fewer nurses, teachers and police. I wonder which communities would feel the chill wind of that?
The Prime Minister is, possibly deliberately and certainly irresponsibly, taking us to that cliff edge on 29 March, with perhaps the meaningful vote in the Commons delayed until just days before, if all that Brussels bar talk is to be believed. This makes an extension to Article 50 inevitable, if for no other reason than that your Lordships’ House, let alone business, is not ready for that.
The uncertainty facing citizens, exporters and importers is intolerable. The Government should now admit we need longer before we leave, especially as any extension will require negotiation with EU partners, each and every one of which has to consent. They should start readying for the inevitable now, as recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
I would never question whether there is a special place somewhere for those who dilly and dally over vital decisions needed for our country. However, I can predict that the electorate will be unforgiving, particularly in polling stations, if Ministers bend more to their ERG caucus than to the interests of the country, sacrificing the economy on the altar of short-term political survival. It is in everyone’s interests that we do not leave the EU without a deal, and it is in democracy’s interests that this matter is brought before Parliament in a timely manner. Without the date in our Motion, such a vote would not be timely, as it would be on the eve of possible departure—a real gun-to-the-head vote. In light of that, I trust that the whole House will support the Motion shortly to be moved by my noble friend.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today, and for the many insightful and considered contributions. Indeed, I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who sought to rise to the challenge of making points that the House had not previously considered. Sadly, many failed in that task, probably including myself, but I particularly enjoyed the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and his holding pattern analogy, which was particularly novel and amusing, although I do not agree with it. I also enjoyed my noble friend Lady Meyer’s spirited speech, despite many interventions. She made some excellent new points about the realities of some of the failings of the EU, which, of course, we do not often get to hear in this House.
During the debate, many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, drew attention to the Prime Minister’s letter to the leader of the Opposition. In particular, a number of noble Lords spoke about the Government’s position on the customs union. As my noble friend Lord Howell pointed out in his speech, the political declaration that we have debated at length in this House explicitly provides for the benefits of a customs union. However, it also recognises the development of the UK’s independent trade policy beyond our economic partnership with the EU. Let me be clear: we are not considering staying in the customs union. We want to play a full and active role on trade policy on the global stage, working closely with friends new and old. From trade remedies to trade promotion and bilateral to multilateral negotiations, the UK will be able to tailor its trade policy to the strengths and requirements of the UK economy and in support of our industrial strategy.
While I am on the subject of trade, I pay tribute to the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on the importance of trade in services. While I again did not agree with every point she made, I can tell her that the UK services sector is a global success story. Our internationally competitive sector plays host to world-leading firms, as well as thriving small and medium-sized businesses. The political declaration includes a commitment to conclude an ambitious arrangement for services and investment that goes well beyond WTO commitments, alongside new arrangements on financial services. But leaving the EU will give the UK regulatory flexibility where it matters most for its service-based economy and where the potential trading opportunities outside the EU are the largest. Globally, services trade is growing rapidly and UK services trade with non-EU countries grew by 73% between 2007 and 2017.
My noble friend Lord Cope asked me quite a technical question about whether the UK’s customs declaration process is on track. We will have a functioning customs system on exit. HMRC continues to progress dual running of the customs declaration system and CHIEF, the current customs declaration system. It can process sufficient numbers of customs declarations anticipated in a no-deal scenario. This capability will be deployed alongside the CDS, ensuring we will have a functioning customs system on exit.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, asked whether I was aware of the number of Americans professing to have Irish roots. The answer is yes, I am, because many of them are indeed my relatives. I also have Irish roots. Indeed, I have discussed Brexit with many in the Irish American community. He might find that not all opinion is uniform on that matter.
Lord Puttnam
I do not think it is people claiming Irish roots; they are adhering to Irish roots. The Minister might be well advised to read today’s Washington Post, which is very informative on this subject. He will find it more than interesting.
Lord Callanan
Indeed I will. I have been preparing for today’s debate and sitting in the Chamber, but I will have a look when I get the opportunity. I can also assure the noble Lord, as he suggested I would, that we have no intention of inflicting any damage on the Irish economy.
Many noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lady Altmann and others, have again asked about Article 50 and suggested that we could simply extend or revoke it. I think she is profoundly wrong on this matter. The Government’s policy has not changed. We will not revoke our notice to withdraw from the European Union under Article 50. We stand by the commitment we made to the British people to uphold the result of the 2016 referendum. To revoke our Article 50 notice would be to dishonour that commitment and to reject an instruction clearly given to us by the British people. On this point I agree with my noble friend Lord Cavendish.
I also do not believe that there is anything like a majority in the House of Commons for such a course of action. Indeed, we might soon find out. I note that there is an amendment tabled by the SNP that, if selected, would put that notion to the test in the other place. Perhaps that would be a useful reality check for those who cling to the belief that they can wish away the referendum as if it had never happened.
I also remind noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, those who would like to extend Article 50, that as they know very well, that is not a unilateral option. An extension would require the consent of all 27 member states, a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. As the Prime Minister correctly highlighted in the other place last week, the EU is very unlikely simply to agree to extend Article 50 without a plan for how we are going to approve a deal. To this extent I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The best way forward, as I have said many times, is to leave in an orderly way with a good deal.
My noble friend Lord Balfe asked me to speculate on potential ratification timetables in the European Parliament. I hope we will be able to secure a satisfactory deal in plenty of time to allow the EP and this Parliament to approve it. I also gently say that we are not proposing to leave the European family—we are proposing to leave the European Union, which is not the same thing.
Unsurprisingly, many noble Lords returned to their favourite subject of a second people’s vote. I include in that number the noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Wilson, Lord Davies, Lord Taverne, Lord Hannay and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I am sure it will come as no surprise to any of them to hear me say that the Government stand by their policy to respect the result of the 2016 referendum. This Government made a commitment to the British people that we would respect the result of that referendum; I agree with the points made on that commitment by my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Cope. I note that this was a promise made by the Opposition too, and while obviously I have many differences with Jeremy Corbyn, on this matter I pay tribute to him, because he at least, unlike many in his party, seems to want to stick by that pledge made in their last election manifesto.
The only guarantees that another referendum would bring are of more mistrust and uncertainty. I notice that the supporters of a second or indeed, according to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, a third people’s vote, have yet again failed to offer this as an option in the House of Commons votes tomorrow, because they know, as do the rest of us, that there is no majority in another place for a second or, indeed, third vote.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and in his inimitable style—although indirectly and through the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, all asked about the legislation to be delivered in advance of exit day. With regard to primary legislation, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 have all now received Royal Assent. Six other exit-related Bills are currently in Parliament. The Trade Bill, the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill and the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill will be prioritised appropriately to ensure that the measures necessary for a functioning statute book on exit day are in place before the UK leaves the EU.
With regard to secondary legislation, the majority of statutory instruments are needed in either a deal or a no-deal scenario, and they will be deferred to the end of the implementation period if they are not needed on 29 March. This is part of our long-term planning—
Lord Callanan
I will give way to the noble Lord in a second, if he will allow me to finish my paragraph.
This is part of our long-term planning, with statutory instruments being laid since Royal Assent of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
How many parliamentary days does the noble Lord estimate those six or seven Bills that he has just outlined will take?
Lord Callanan
The planning of parliamentary processes and times are matters for the usual channels, in which the noble Lord used to take part, but we remain confident that we will deliver the appropriate and necessary legislation ready for our exit day.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is in his place—he is—I can tell him that Ministers have been actively engaging key figures in Europe. They include my colleagues the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who were in Brussels and Strasbourg this week. The Foreign Secretary was also in Paris earlier this week. I have spoken to a number of my colleagues in ministries in other European countries as well. Meetings to discuss the ideas put forward by the alternative arrangements working group have taken place, and we are grateful to that group for its work. We continue to explore its ideas.
The Prime Minister set out the UK’s position, strengthened by the mandate that the other place has given her: that Parliament needs to see legally binding changes to the backstop, which can be achieved by changes to the withdrawal agreement. She and the President of the Commission agreed that our teams should hold further talks to find a way forward. The Prime Minister and Mr Juncker will meet again before the end of February to take stock of those new discussions, so our work continues. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made some extremely good points on the need for discussions to continue.
I thank my noble friend Lord Ridley, first, for his compliments and, secondly, for his question about the card reportedly received by Jean-Claude Juncker from the Irish Taoiseach. I had better be careful how much I say about this, but while I have done a lot of leaflet delivery in my time, the letterboxes in Brussels seem to have got a lot larger since I was last there. Perhaps it was an early Valentine’s card from Leo to Jean-Claude. In any case, the Government are fully committed to upholding the commitments of the Belfast agreement. My noble friend also made some very valid points about Commission appointments; much as I am tempted, perhaps I should leave my remarks on them there.
My noble friend Lord Cathcart asked about using Article XXIV of the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to ensure that we have tariff-free and quota-free trade with the EU. This provision refers to interim agreements. In order to use it, we would need to agree with the EU the shape of the future economic partnership, together with a plan and schedule for getting there. This would then need to be presented to all 164 WTO members and they would be able to scrutinise it, suggest changes and, ultimately, veto it. This is of course not the Government’s preferred option. The Prime Minister and her team are working hard to agree legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement, as I said earlier, so that Parliament can unite behind it and the UK can leave the EU with a deal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about CRaG—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, it remains the Government’s intention to follow normal procedures if we can. However, if insufficient time remains following a successful meaningful vote in the other place, we will make provision in the withdrawal agreement Bill to ensure that we can still ratify on time, to guarantee our exit in an orderly way. This would of course require agreement in both Houses; noble Lords will no doubt want to consider the arguments carefully. What is important is that Parliament has the opportunity for ample time to scrutinise, debate and vote on the withdrawal agreement. In the circumstance where the House of Commons had voted to pass that agreement, though, it is hard to see why Parliament would want to hold up our exit or to allow MPs or Peers to consider the treaty once more.
I turn to the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, which seeks to tie the Government’s hands in negotiations. We cannot support a Motion which mentions “all steps necessary” to avoid no deal without excluding “no Brexit” from the list of necessary steps. The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government want to leave the EU with a deal agreed with the European Union and with the support of Parliament. That is why she has listened to the concerns raised in the other place about the backstop and is working to find a solution that can command the support of MPs. As I said, discussions with the EU are continuing with that aim.
However, as the Prime Minister has said, it is not sufficient just to wish to avoid no deal. The best way for MPs to avoid a no-deal scenario is of course to vote for a deal. When we have secured the progress that we need, we will bring forward another vote under Section 13(1)(b) and (1)(c) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. But we do not agree with the timing strictures that the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness proposes. As the Prime Minister said, and as I set out in my opening speech, if the Government have not secured a majority in the other place in favour of a withdrawal agreement and political declaration, the Government will make a Statement on Tuesday 26 February and table an amendable Motion to that Statement. A Minister will move that Motion on Wednesday 27 February, thereby enabling Members of the other place to vote on it, and any amendments to it, on that day.
This has been another good debate on our exit, and it will certainly not be the last. As I made clear in my opening remarks, a clear timetable has been set out for the next steps in Parliament. Tomorrow will see debate in the other place, where MPs will also consider amendments to the Government’s Motion. Noble Lords, as I will, will no doubt be watching with great interest. In closing, however, I reiterate, in case there is any doubt, that this Government are committed to delivering on the result of the referendum. We want this to take place in a smooth and orderly way, which requires securing a deal that MPs can support. The other place has made clear what it wishes to see changed, and that is what the Prime Minister is working to secure in our further discussions with the EU.
EU Withdrawal
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
21:26 - Division on Baroness Smith of Basildon’s Motion - Ayes: 155 / Noes: 69 - Baroness Smith of Basildon’s Motion agreed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House, further to its resolutions of 14 and 28 January, calls on Her Majesty’s Government to take all steps necessary to ensure that (1) the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on 29 March 2019 without an agreement with the European Union which has been fully ratified by both Houses of Parliament, and that (2) before the end of February 2019, motions are moved which fulfil the provisions under sections 13(1)(b) and (c) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I started the day as an optimist, but the Minister has disappointed me yet again. He has failed to commit to doing everything to avoid no deal; he has failed to give a credible explanation of how we could reach an acceptable deal; and he has failed to say how we can get legislation through before exit day. Therefore, I beg to move.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text